Clarice Feldman ping.
If you'd like to be on or off the Clarice Feldman ping list, drop me a FReepmail.
Posted on 05/22/2016 10:19:14 AM PDT by jazusamo
It’s a lie often repeated that Obama was a Constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school. In fact, he was just a lecturer there for a short time who never much impressed his colleagues. Watching this administration in action one wonders what, if anything, he understands about the Constitution at all. His is an administration based on flouting it.
It’s true that the judicial process moves slowly and such conduct can continue for a while until halted, but repeatedly the courts are catching up.
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the administration 20 times. As Ted Cruz noted:
President Obama has seen 20 unanimous defeats before the Supreme Court during the five and a half years of his presidency, a pace that outstrips former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, according to a review of his record since 2009 by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas). “President Obama’s unanimous Supreme Court loss rate, for the five and half years of his presidency, is nearly double that of President Bush and is 25 percent greater than President Clinton,” Cruz notes in a survey of how Obama’s lawyers performed before the high court. Bush lost 15 cases unanimously, while Clinton lost 23 -- but those defeats came over an eight-year period. When Cruz released his first report on the topic in April of 2013, he pointed out that Obama had lost nine cases unanimously since January of 2012. This latest installment takes account of the four most recent unanimous rulings against Obama, and the seven handed down by the court before 2012. The defeats include cases such: as Judalang v. Holder, when the court faulted the Obama team for making an “arbitrary and capricious” attempt to rewrite the rules...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ping!
I don’t think Obozo knows the Constitution.
But the people who are supposed to know the Constitution sat on their hands while this self-admitted British subject, not natural born citizen, usurped the office of President.
Children of foreign nationals are NOT natural born citizens.
“As Ted Cruz noted:...”
Oh the irony.
Cruz claimed Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen, because:
1) He was born in a foreign country
2) His father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth
3) His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth
Remind you of anyone besides Obama?
I’m amazed he had the guts to say it, of course he surely had a serious look on his face.
Clarice Feldman ping.
If you'd like to be on or off the Clarice Feldman ping list, drop me a FReepmail.
That’s really hutzpah on Cruz’s part. I’m not even convinced that his mother didn’t revoke her US citizenship for Canadian benefits before Cruz was born.
You have a good tag line. How does this thing even have 40+ percent of Americans supporting her? She belongs in prison.
Misnomer. Obama’ss mother was 18 and did not meet the 5 year requirement.
IF....you believe a word of the "Obama"/Ayers narrative.
Oh right.
I guess I missed the discussion of that 5 year requirement in the Constitution and Federalist papers.
On the other hand, you do realize Cruz’s mother had EMMIGRATED to Canada. She had left the USA with no intention of ever coming back. It was only a fluke (marriage problems) that caused her to move back. Her son Ted didn’t even set foot on American soil till he was almost 5 years old.
If you are quick to dismiss Obama’s natural born citizenship based on a technicality, then you have to admit Cruz’s status hangs by an even thinner technical thread.
In other words, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to address race issues outside the scope of voting rights. This makes Obama an “expert” on constitutionally non-existent federal government powers where race issues outside the scope of voting rights are concerned.
Note that the post-17th Amendment ratification, post FDR-era Congress has made all kinds of race related laws for which it has no constitutional authority to make imo, such laws evidently based on the twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
But note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Corrupt federal lawmaker make race protection laws using the Court’s tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause as their justification, presumably to win special-interest votes from low-information citizens, citizens who have never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Good point. A lot of assumpting going on here.
It seems he thought "If Obama can get away with it, I can get away with it".
Not a real All-American Constitutional Conservative position.
The Constitution no longer applies. After all, it was written in cursive. Who can read that anymore? /sarcasm
Guess you missed the statute from Congress too.
Then why do they allow all these unconstitutional laws to exist?
That was a prevailing opinion on FR as well.
Yes, and both parties were....WRONG!
Note that the Founding States not only established the federal Senate, but they gave the power to vote for federal senators uniquely to the state legislatures. This is because one of the reasons that the Founding States had established the Senate was so that the Senate would kill unconstitutional bills made by the House, bills that not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also state revenues associated with those powers.
This is why the 17th Amendment is a problem. Now that low-information voters control the Senate, they are electing federal senators who don’t know the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers any better then the voters do. Consequently, low-information senators unthinkingly help the House to pass bills that the states have never constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make.
And speaking of low-information voters, parents have evidently not been making sure that their children are being taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. And this situation has probably been going on for many generations.
For example, I recently asked a businessman if he was familiar with the 14th Amendment. And this is no joke, he asked, “Isn’t that the gun rights amendment?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.