Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone

Townhall.com ^ | May 25, 2012 | David Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

Has President Obama's disrespectful attitude toward the United States Supreme Court caused a trickledown effect among the Democratic leadership in Congress, or was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's recent invective against Chief Justice John Roberts self-generated?

You will recall that in April, President Obama launched a salvo against the court about a pending case -- concerning Obamacare -- seeking to either intimidate the justices into upholding the law or lay a foundation for political criticism should they strike it.

At a news conference, Obama said, "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Never mind that Obamacare did not represent the democratic will of the American people. What was unprecedented and extraordinary -- besides a piece of legislation's taking over more than one-seventh of the American economy and unconstitutionally mandating people to buy a product -- was for a sitting president to attempt to bully the Supreme Court to affect the outcome of a pending case.

Obama had already chastised the court for ruling against his political will in the Citizens United case, but at least that was after the decision had been rendered. His brazen community-organizing comments concerning a not-yet-decided case was something else again.

Then, this week, on the Senate floor, Leahy issued what many called "a warning shot" to the court. "Acting out based on their personal views on this matter," said Leahy, "would be the height of conservative judicial activism" and would reflect poorly on Roberts' legacy.

The Democratic ruling class has become so arrogant about its ability to make Orwellian comments without fear of contradiction from the mainstream media that it doesn't even do a credible job of faking common-sense arguments.

Notice, for example, how con law professor Obama warned the court, an institution that is honor-bound not to bend to the popular will, that it must bend to the popular will.

Though Obama and Leahy doubtlessly understand this -- notwithstanding their best imitation of ignorance on the matter -- judicial activism is not striking a law that was passed with overwhelming popular support, which Obamacare, incidentally, most certainly wasn't. It is judges rewriting the Constitution to achieve a political outcome, as opposed to deciding according to the Constitution.

If the court overturns this hideously unconstitutional (and enormously unpopular) law, it will not, Sen. Leahy, be "acting out based on" its "personal views" or be the "height of conservative judicial activism" but will be a proper judicial corrective of an egregious legislative and executive abuse of power.

Just because it has been settled law since 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" doesn't mean that Congress and the president are exempted from their duty to enact laws that pass constitutional muster.

But you wouldn't know that by observing this crop of Democratic lawmakers, who revealed their contempt for the Constitution a few years ago on video, as they -- Nancy Pelosi and countless others -- mocked the idea that they are under any duty to ensure their enactments conform to constitutional precepts.

These rule of law-defying politicians would do well to heed the words of Sir William Blackstone, the venerable English jurist whose treatise "Commentaries on the Laws of England" long stood as the leading work on English law and was instrumental in the development of American common law and our entire legal system.

Blackstone, who wrote in the 18th century, was no stranger to legislative arrogance and strongly affirmed the duty of legislators to take their role seriously. He wrote that those "who are ambitious of representing their country in parliament ... who are ambitious of receiving so high a trust, would also do well to remember its nature and importance." Their duty, he said, is not to "vote with or vote against a popular or unpopular administration; but upon considerations far more interesting and important. They are the guardians of the English Constitution; the makers, repealers, and interpreters of the English laws; delegated to watch, to check, and to avert every dangerous innovation."

And consider this Blackstone statement in light of the 2,700-page behemoth that is Obamacare: "What kind of interpretation can (the legislator) be enabled to give, who is a stranger to the text upon which he comments."

Quoting "Tully," Blackstone continued, "It is necessary for a senator to be thoroughly acquainted with the constitution; and this (he declares) is a knowledge of the most extensive nature; a matter of science, of diligence, of reflection; without which no senator can possibly be fit for his office."

Indeed. The same goes for a president.

[Clintonfatigued]

I can’t wait for Obama to be out of the White House, even if it means we’re stuck with Romney. I’m not certain that the country can survive a second Obama term.

[Sir Napsalot]

It stems from the wrong public notion of being ‘democratic’.

Liberals view that if you can sway public opinion to majority (> 50%), then you win your case. (Only it doesn’t apply to their progressive ends.....)

Doesn’t matter that is not how SC justices work. They are supposed to argue purely from the Constitution, not the current view, not the public opinion, esp. not the foreign trend, etc.

[Lou L]

Surely by now, the decision is known to the SCOTUS. They have written a majority and minority opinion, and they're just polishing the last bit of their texts. Such comments by Obama and Leahy will not change the outcome, so I have to believe that there are only several possible outcomes:

a. The SCOTUS overturns the law. OBama and Leahy look ignorant. Obama's re-election campaign takes a major hit, as his signature achievement is found to be un-Constitutional.

b. SCOTUS upholds the law. In this case, Obama and Leahy look very strong, very persuasive in their rhetoric. Obama supporters go crazy, and independents are also swayed. SCOTUS is for all intents and purposes, rendered impotent for any future ruling concerning Constitutional matters.

c. SCOTUS overturns the law. Obama and Leahy knew in advance the decision, because it was leaked to them. Their recent attacks on SCOTUS are for political reasons--they will run on the overturned decision, and blame Republicans for "taking healthcare away from people who need it the most."

[Kaslin]

November 6 cannot come soon enough for me either

[Kaslin]

November 6 cannot come soon enough for me either

[Feckless]

"Acting out based on their personal views on this matter," said Leahy, "would be the height of conservative judicial activism" and would reflect poorly on Roberts' legacy.

Like the Liberal Cxxts on the Court would NEVER do anything like that. F you, Leaky.....

[nicksaunt]

c. SCOTUS overturns the law. Obama and Leahy knew in advance the decision, because it was leaked to them. Their recent attacks on SCOTUS are for political reasons--they will run on the overturned decision, and blame Republicans for "taking healthcare away from people who need it the most."

C is the answer. They know. I cannot believe they would be publicly reacting like this if the decision were going their way. They are setting up the post-decision scenario.

[ELS]

From Wikipedia: "Leahy is the second most senior U.S. Senator, and second longest-serving Democrat in the U.S. Senate having served since 1975."

Another member of Congress who has been in D.C. waaaayyy too long.

[loveliberty2]

Thank you for posting!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are...
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men."

"What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, ".these may be reduced to three principal articles:

1. the right of personal security (life);
2. the right of personal liberty; and,
3. the right of private property...."

So-called "intellectual" "progressives," such as Obama, those who taught and influenced him, those who advise him, as well as Leahy, show no grounding in the principles of the Constitution's foundations in the wisdom of the ages, as enunciated by Blackstone and America's Founders.

That Constitution was not to be used by men to expand government. It was "the People's" "chain" (Jefferson) to bind down political (legislative and executive) will of those who would exceed its limits on their power.

The works of Sir William Blackstone, along with the 85 essays of THE FEDERALIST, according to Jefferson, were to be used for the study of law at the University of Virginia.

Does it appear that those who attempt to "change" America from its foundations in liberty are using those those works as the basis of their understanding of America's basic law?

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. . . . This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe to all countries, and at all times, no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this." - Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

[Kaslin]

You are very welcome