Our little dictator lobs one over the bow of the Supreme Court. **UPDATE: Now with proof of my genius from the Fifth Circuit**
Lest you forget, oral arguments concerning Obamacare were had last week in the Supreme Court. At stake: the individual mandate, and potentially the whole friggin’ law. Despite the assertions of the legal geniuses residing in their ivory tower law schools, the Supremes didn’t seem convinced that forcing every American to purchase a product constituted “regulation of economic activity.” In fact, at least five, and possibly six, of the Justices seemed skeptical about whether inactivity was the type of activity that could be regulated. After the hearings were completed, everyone proceeded to overreact.
The most over-the-top, and predictable, overreaction came from the president yesterday. In a speech delivered with the heads of Mexico and Canada(?), Barry proceeded to threaten the Supreme Court, just in case they were stupid enough to go against the family.
‘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,’ Obama said.
I’m not sure overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented. The last time I looked, the Constitution considers the Supreme Court to be equal to Congress. Moreover, the job of the Court has, for a few centuries, been to review legislation passed by Congress for its constitutionality. In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned laws passed by Congress before. Thus, doing so here would not be “unprecedented.” Also, being that the Democrats had to bribe some of their own members in the Senate to get the thing passed in the first place, I’d hardly call Obamacare legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (not that the number of “yes” votes matters to a law’s constitutionality).
Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the ‘unelected’ Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.
I agree. Activist judges suck. But overturning Obamacare because the mandate is an unprecedented overreach of the federal government wouldn’t constitute “activism.” In other words, deciding that forcing an American citizen to buy something doesn’t constitute “regulating interstate commerce” isn’t exactly crazy. In fact, as I eluded to earlier, the only way the mandate could be upheld is if the Court decides “regulate” and “activity” actually mean the exact opposite. Don’t get me wrong…it wouldn’t shock me if the Court performed such a manipulation of the English language, but its choosing not to do so certainly wouldn’t constitute radical activism.
‘I think it’s important…to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,’ Obama said.
‘The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.
‘There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.’
In a courtroom, the foregoing is what’s called “irrelevant.” I’m sure my life would be much more enjoyable if Congress passed a law requiring me to buy a helicopter, and then provided me the money if I couldn’t afford it; but the satisfaction of laughing at the losers stuck in traffic while I sip champagne in my underwear doesn’t make it constitutional.
It should be noted that Barry’s rant against the Supreme Court is just another example of his dictatorial dreams. Who can forget the fits he still throws when Congress doesn’t give him what he wants? And just as he has done in response to Congress’s alleged “failure to act,” (giving unelected agencies like the EPA and FDA truly unprecedented power, for example), I’m predicting Barry tries to do something extreme if the Court overturns Obamacare. Packing the Courts, a la FDR? Something else? We’ll have to wait and see.
The Fifth Circuit today, while hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare, revealed that it reads this very blog as part of its preparation for important oral arguments.
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
Obviously a Fifth Circuit judge isn’t going to go on the record saying he or she relies upon a blog to provide pertinent legal background, but it’s obvious, right? Didn’t I already point out that the Supreme Court has stricken unconstitutional legislation before? Who else can provide this kind of legal research? The president himself isn’t even aware, and he used to be a law professor!
Obvious questions remain: Will the Justice Department respond? Will Eric Holder find the time between running guns to Mexico and racially profiling nuns (I made up the latter)? Will Barry write the letter himself, in purple crayon (the most diverse color)? WILL THIS BLOG FINALLY GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES?
Who knew the pill could cause such a ruckus? I’d be a little shocked at where we are in this debate, if it weren’t so typical. For those of you that have been living under a rock for the past several days, Barry has decided to pick a fight with the Catholic Church. Specifically, he thinks compelling Catholic employers, such as Catholic hospitals, to pay for contraceptives for their employees is in keeping with his promise to be the awesomest president EVER. This wouldn’t be a problem, other than for the fact that the Catholic Church considers the use of contraceptives a sin, and therefore, is disgruntled by the feds forcing Catholics to pay for such items. Commence public outrage.
Disclaimer: I am not a Catholic. I don’t have any problem with people using contraceptives, and I don’t think an abortion is the best way to make sure Debbie can fit into her prom dress (too far?). But I did watch part of a documentary on PBS about the constitution once, and I’m pretty sure the government can’t force you to do something that violates your religion. Well, that’s assuming your religion doesn’t consist of smoking pot in your mom’s basement, but I digress. In fact, “freedom of religion” is right up front, in the first amendment. It’s even more important than being able to use your gun against that neighbor who never cleans up after his dog (you know the guy).
So why is this even an issue? Why are my Youtubes all clogged up with sob stories from some law school student about how embarrassing it was to get to the counter and find out she actually had to pay for those pills? Oh, that’s right. The issue consists of sex, free stuff, and “crazy religious folk (who must be white. and old. and men.).” In other words, it’s right in a liberal’s sweet spot.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. ‘I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?’
This statement was made yesterday, after a congressional hearing on contraceptives (must have been a slow day in Congress). Ms. Maloney’s statement is convenient because it highlights the spin that the left is offering to disguise the aforementioned tomfoolery. “This isn’t about religious liberty, it’s about a woman’s right to keep her uterus as dusty as possible, for as long as possible. And this can only happen with Catholic-provided contraceptives.” FYI: That’s a quote I made up while driving in my automobile. Thus, you can attribute its hilarity to me.
As you’ve figured out by now, this isn’t about contraception. It isn’t about women’s rights. It isn’t even about feminism, or sexism, or some other “ism.” It’s about the federal government compelling a religion to do something that is against its religion. And no, it doesn’t matter that 98% of female Catholics use contraceptives. All that means is 98% of female Catholics feel like ignoring the teachings of their church.
Barry’s effort to force Catholic employers to provide birth control to their employees is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. And it’s not even close. I’ll be interested to see who folds on this. Does the Catholic Church have the courage of its convictions? Or will our president create another constitutional crisis? In other words, pass the popcorn.
Or should I call him Dictator…or just Dic. It’s quite amazing really. I still hear libs call George W. Bush’s War in Iraq “illegal,” even though he actually sought, and received, Congressional approval multiple times. Let’s compare that to our current president. As you all know, B.O. decided to send some of our military assets to Libya, to help Western Europe secure some oil. Since that time, we’ve been part of a coordinated effort to assassinate the leader of a foreign country that’s in the middle of a civil war. Oh, and our president never asked Congress’s approval to do any of it.
To be fair, the prez had the authority to act unilaterally against Libya under the War Powers Resolution. The WPR only allows him to take such action for sixty days, however…and that time has expired. In other words, in order for the U.S. to continue its military action in Libya, Congressional approval is necessary. It’s the law. Unless you’re supreme leader Barack Hussein Obama.
Today, instead of seeking Congressional approval, our democratically elected president took it upon himself to tell the American people, with their pesky laws, to pound sand. See, according to Barack, since we’re only half-assing our way to killing Qaddafi, our involvement in the Libyan conflict is “limited.” Since it’s “limited,” Congressional approval is not needed. Obama’s assertions are astonishing for several reasons. First, claiming that military action is “limited” because we’re only “providing support” to NATO, when we’re the only ones with the boats and missiles and stuff, is absurd. Second, the President is doing the very thing his party has accused Bush of doing, i.e., waging an illegal war, except this time, it’s actually illegal. Last but not least, the whole basis for not seeking Congressional approval, i.e., that Libya is a “limited operation,” is an exception that doesn’t actually exist in the War Powers Resolution. Barry and his lawyers simply made it up. Oh, and then there’s that whole “we’re not trying to assassinate Qaddafi (that would be illegal) but we keep firing missiles at his house” thing.
Considering that Barry has already appointed his own personal czars to direct all manner of government without any Congressional oversight, deciding he can wage war against anyone he chooses, whenever he gets bored, doesn’t come as much of a surprise. After all, he did just send U.S. military into a foreign country without its consent to shoot an unarmed man in the face. But I must admit, I’m becoming a little scared of our tyrant in Washington. Remember, Hitler was elected democratically too.
**UPDATE** Well, despite what ABC told me almost thirty days ago (see link above), apparently the prez gets 90 days, not 60, to seek approval from Congress regarding Libya. Not that it matters, since Barry still hasn’t asked for permission. Now, Boehner has warned B.O. to seek Congress’s approval by Sunday (day 90)…or else (or else what?).
**UPDATE II** Apparently ABC was right the first time…it is 60 days. Although there seems to be some level of “flexibility” that could allow for 90.