Obama Read Your Constitution & Quit Showing Your Ignorance About Supreme Court

From the article....

"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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico."

I'm not sure I'd call a 219 to 212 vote in the House and a 60 to 40 vote in the Senate a "strong majority." Granted, a more successful vote in the Senate, but it just kind of squeaked through the House.
 
HeDied4U said:
From the article....

"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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico."

I'm not sure I'd call a 219 to 212 vote in the House and a 60 to 40 vote in the Senate a "strong majority." Granted, a more successful vote in the Senate, but it just kind of squeaked through the House.
Click to expand...

Me either...nor would I call that consideration of the Constitutionality of any law by whatever number of representatives unprecedented...the president seems to forget his civics, he wants to make a big deal about the Justices not being elected...that's the point Mr President, they don't have to be elect or worry about re-election, but only have to concern themselves with the Constitution.  Our President needs to learn that...and sadly some of the Supreme Court Justices need to remember that.  It is not what the majority want...its what the Constitution allows.
 
Hey, T-Bone, lay off our fearless leader. After all he is a constitutional scholar and he went to Harvard Law School. Did you? Didn't think so.


(Just wanted to say it before redgreen did.)

On a more serious note, what do you expect from our fearless (or is it feckless? I keep getting those confused) leader when he used his State of the Union address as an occasion to call down the Supreme Court for ruling against him? I know it is improper to get up and walk out of a presidential speech, but I would have been sorely tempted. Of course it is improper for one branch of government to call down one of the other branches as well.
 
It isn't so much ignorance from which he operates as supreme arrogance-- a level of arrogance that befits a populace that has forsaken God and His truth.

The more I see of this four-year sentence of extreme foolishness, and the more I see of our nation's rebellion against God, the more I see that we have been handed over to exactly the kind of leadership we deserve.
 
Meh, conservatives moan when liberal judges are activists, too.  This is hardly unusual.

Having said that, I hope the individual mandate is overturned.  It's a step too far.
 
Bou said:
....conservatives moan when liberal judges are activists, too..... 
Click to expand...

Would you care to name a case where the conservatives on the court used the Constitution to promote their social agenda?
 
JrChurch said:
Thank you for that informative reply.
Click to expand...

If you ask a question like, "How long have you been abusing your wife?", it's hard for people to answer that.

If you rephrased it differently, the answer would be Citizen's United.
 
Bou said:
JrChurch said:
Thank you for that informative reply.
Click to expand...

If you ask a question like, "How long have you been abusing your wife?", it's hard for people to answer that.

If you rephrased it differently, the answer would be Citizen's United.
Click to expand...

I had several answers, but the way the question was worded made me delete them.

The first one that came to mind was Jacobellis vs Ohio.
 
HeDied4U said:

I'm not sure I'd call a 219 to 212 vote in the House and a 60 to 40 vote in the Senate a "strong majority." Granted, a more successful vote in the Senate, but it just kind of squeaked through the House.

And, as Al Mohler pointed out in his podcast this morning, Obama is seeking to have the Defense of Marriage Act overturned insofar as he has directed the Attorney General not to defend the constitutional challenge against it.  When DOMA was passed in 1996, it was passed in both Houses by a far stronger majority.

Double standards abound when you're a liberal. It's not about consistency - it's about getting your way.
 
Bou said:
JrChurch said:
Thank you for that informative reply.
Click to expand...

If you ask a question like, "How long have you been abusing your wife?", it's hard for people to answer that.

If you rephrased it differently, the answer would be Citizen's United.
Click to expand...

Had you claimed that conservatives moan when liberal judges are activists, I would have agreed.  But you added "too" and that changed the inference to a charge of activism on both sides. 
 
JrChurch said:
Bou said:
JrChurch said:
Thank you for that informative reply.
Click to expand...

If you ask a question like, "How long have you been abusing your wife?", it's hard for people to answer that.

If you rephrased it differently, the answer would be Citizen's United.
Click to expand...

Had you claimed that conservatives moan when liberal judges are activists, I would have agreed.  But you added "too" and that changed the inference to a charge of activism on both sides.
Click to expand...

That is correct.  Both sides practice activism.  You just have to decide which side's activism you like better.

Contrary to popular belief, the emperor is nude.  If you avert your eyes, it doesn't change anything.
 
Ruling on the constitutionality of a law is what conservative justices do.  That is why they are labeled conservative. 
 
JrChurch said:
Ruling on the constitutionality of a law is what conservative justices do.  That is why they are labeled conservative.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really say anything though.

Liberal justices rule on the constitutionality of laws as well.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent interview on Egyptian TV when asked about a post-Mubarak Constitution:

"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

I have never heard a comment like that from a conservative justice. 
 
JrChurch said:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent interview on Egyptian TV when asked about a post-Mubarak Constitution:

"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

I have never heard a comment like that from a conservative justice.
Click to expand...

She's right - and maybe you should read the Constitution first before commenting on it. 

Or perhaps you secretly like the part about blacks only being "three-fifths persons" and women not allowed to vote?  It took hundreds of years to fix those problems.  The idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens is pretty outlandish as well.

From a historical perspective, conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every issue:

Women & Children
voting rights for women - conservatives opposed;
civil rights for women - conservatives opposed;
equality in marital law - conservatives opposed;
equal pay for equal work - conservatives opposed;
child labor laws - conservatives opposed;

Minorities
civil rights for minorities - conservatives opposed;
racial integration of public facilities and services - conservatives opposed;
civil rights for non-Judeo Christian religious groups - conservatives opposed;
civil protections for "socially undesirable" minorities such as gays, lesbians, immigrants, handicapped, native/aboriginal peoples, etc. - conservatives opposed;

Corporate
making corporations pay the full cost of their actions - conservatives opposed;
preventing corporate influence in government - conservatives opposed;
stopping "too big to fail" banks from wrecking the economy - conservatives still oppose

Civil
strong 4th amendment issues such as blocking unreasonable search, surveillance, rendition - conservatives oppose;
stopping pre-emptive foreign wars - conservatives oppose;
holding police and the justice system accountable - conservatives oppose;
indigenous uprisings against military dictators or oppressive regimes - Iran, The Philippines, the West Bank, South Africa, etc. - conservatives oppose;

Science
heliocentrism - conservatives opposed;
evolution and descent with modification - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;
pollution controls - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;
global warming - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;

Even going back to the time of the Magna Carta, conservatives have stood for one principle:  concentrating power and influence in the hands of the few, the elite, and vigorously trying to preserve that arrangement.  That is what it *means* to be conservative:  to conserve the present system and arrangement and resist changing it at all costs. Power is never to be surrendered, and since wealth is power, conservativism tends to monopoly and to such practices as generational accumulation and transfer of wealth (something even our Founding Fathers abhorred, because they saw how it bred the class system in Europe). Yet today, what do we find?  Conservatives trying to restrict political power to themselves, using their corporations to influence government, and changing the laws to create even more accumulation of wealth, for generational transfer.  History repeats itself.

So:  in what way is the conservative model anything to respect or emulate?
 
redgreen5 said:
Or perhaps you secretly like the part about blacks only being "three-fifths persons"...
Click to expand...

You should either re-read your history books or stop blatantly spinning what the Constitution actually says.

[quote author=redgreen5]The idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens is pretty outlandish as well. [/quote]

Who owns corporations?

[quote author=redgreen5]From a historical perspective, conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every issue...[/quote]

I don't have time to do down every issue (and some you are right on). But I figured I'd take a stab at a few of them...

[quote author=redgreen5]equal pay for equal work - conservatives opposed;[/quote]

So liberals were opposed to private property rights?

[quote author=redgreen5]civil protections for "socially undesirable" minorities such as gays, lesbians, immigrants, handicapped, native/aboriginal peoples, etc. - conservatives opposed;[/quote]

I guess it would depend on which "civil protections" we are discussing, wouldn't it?

[quote author=redgreen5]making corporations pay the full cost of their actions - conservatives opposed;[/quote]

What does this even mean?

[quote author=redgreen5]preventing corporate influence in government - conservatives opposed;[/quote]

As opposed to labor unions, pro-abortion groups, and environmentalists?

[quote author=redgreen5]stopping "too big to fail" banks from wrecking the economy - conservatives still oppose[/quote]

What does this even mean?

[quote author=redgreen5]strong 4th amendment issues such as blocking unreasonable search, surveillance, rendition - conservatives oppose;[/quote]

Who just said the military has the right to detain Americans on American soil indefinitely? The NDAA is, by far, a worse violation of the 4th amendment than the Patriot Act.

[quote author=redgreen5]stopping pre-emptive foreign wars - conservatives oppose;[/quote]

[quote author=redgreen5]indigenous uprisings against military dictators or oppressive regimes - Iran, The Philippines, the West Bank, South Africa, etc. - conservatives oppose;[/quote]

Can't have it both ways. Need to pick one or the other.

[quote author=redgreen5]holding police and the justice system accountable - conservatives oppose;[/quote]

Kind of like dropping charges of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers and holding "terrorists" without bail for a couple years only to have charges dropped? And, let's not forget providing weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Oh yeah....that was the current Justice Department.

[quote author=redgreen5]Science
heliocentrism - conservatives opposed;
evolution and descent with modification - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;[/quote]

You really don't understand the history of science and the university system, do you?

[quote author=redgreen5]pollution controls - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;[/quote]

To some extents, you are right. However, CO2 is not a "pollutant".

[quote author=redgreen5]global warming - conservatives opposed and *still* oppose;[/quote]

Anthropomorphic global warming....see the difference?

[quote author=redgreen5]Even going back to the time of the Magna Carta, conservatives have stood for one principle:  concentrating power and influence in the hands of the few, the elite, and vigorously trying to preserve that arrangement.  That is what it *means* to be conservative:  to conserve the present system and arrangement and resist changing it at all costs. Power is never to be surrendered, and since wealth is power, conservativism tends to monopoly and to such practices as generational accumulation and transfer of wealth (something even our Founding Fathers abhorred, because they saw how it bred the class system in Europe). Yet today, what do we find?  Conservatives trying to restrict political power to themselves, using their corporations to influence government, and changing the laws to create even more accumulation of wealth, for generational transfer.  History repeats itself.[/quote]

Wow...Stalin and Mao were conservatives?  :o

[quote author=redgreen5]From a historical perspective, conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every issue...[/quote]
[quote author=redgreen5]So:  in what way is the conservative model anything to respect or emulate?[/quote]

And "liberals" think "equality" means "same" and that women should have the right to murder their children. Those are pretty heinous positions to take.

Idea! How about we recognize that both liberals and conservatives have good points and bad points and stop with the "us" vs. "them" mentality where everything "we" do has to be good and everything "they" do has to be bad.

 
[quote author=rsc2a]
You should either re-read your history books or stop blatantly spinning what the Constitution actually says.
[/quote]

The Constitution, in laying out the census and basis for taxation, only counted blacks as 3/5 of a person.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

If you don't know this material, maybe you shouldn't comment on it.


The idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens is pretty outlandish as well.

Who owns corporations?
Click to expand...

I own a car. Does a car have the same rights as I do?
Don't dodge the point next time.

Are you aware that the UK model for companies does not require incorporation?

Under the hypothetical situation of abolished corporate personhood, the company owners and/or BoD can be summoned instead -- as well as being fined, and levied, and even bankrupted. It was, in fact, that distasteful scenario that provided some of the impetus to create the legal innovation of corporate personhood.

You act as if this is somehow the only way that business can be conducted. The UK provides an entirely different example. A case in point: back in 1995, a rogue securities trader in Singapore by the name of Nick Leeson caused the collapse of Barings Bank in the UK in 1995. Barings had been around since before the American War for Independence. They had provided financing to Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. Yes this one rogue trader took down the entire bank.

I remember watching one of the board of Barings Bank being interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes right after it happened. Mike Wallace was explaining the difference in the USA vs. UK legal system of Ltd. vs corporations, and noting how an American bankrtupcy would allow the personal assets of a corporation's executives to be shielded. But in the UK the courts were able to go after not just the bank's assets, but the personal assets of the executives and board of directors. The discussion with the executive went something like this:

Wallace: the bankruptcy courts have much more reach in the UK under your system of business laws.

Barings exec: yes they do.

Wallace: Still, they couldn't have been all that bad, could they? That looks like a rather nice suit you have, though. And what about the cufflinks? They look rather expensive.

Barings exec: The court allowed me to keep personal clothing. The cufflinks are borrowed for the occasion [the television interview].

I suspect that if the US laws were changed to mirror the UK laws, we would have seen far fewer mortgage banks making risky gambles and fewer Enrons, Tycos, and WorldComs as well. When executives realize that they cannot shelter their personal assets in case of company failure, they're suddenly invested in a new and very meaningful way in the success of their corporation. The same way, in fact, that a single proprietorship business owner is invested in his/her business, and the same way that an employee is invested in the employer's business.

I don't have time to do down every issue (and some you are right on). But I figured I'd take a stab at a few of them...

[quote author=redgreen5]equal pay for equal work - conservatives opposed;
Click to expand...

So liberals were opposed to private property rights?[/quote]

This is a recounting of which side of the issue that conservatives found themselves arguing. Do you disagree that conservatives opposed equal pay for equal work?  I can provide you with citations if you need them.

How is this a private property rights issue?
And at what point does equal treatment before the law come into play in your book?


civil protections for "socially undesirable" minorities such as gays, lesbians, immigrants, handicapped, native/aboriginal peoples, etc. - conservatives opposed;

I guess it would depend on which "civil protections" we are discussing, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really.  This is basically a recitation of which side the conservatives have been on. Conservatives have opposed all such civil protections.  Feel free to point out any exceptional cases where they have supported such protections.

making corporations pay the full cost of their actions - conservatives opposed;

What does this even mean?
Click to expand...

For example, pollution controls.  For centuries, companies polluted without regard.  But those actions have costs.  Companies cost-shifted those acts off their shoulders onto their neighbors, the communities they were located in, or to their customers.  Conservatives opposed the idea of assigning costs back to the entities committing the actions that generate said costs.

preventing corporate influence in government - conservatives opposed;

As opposed to labor unions, pro-abortion groups, and environmentalists?
Click to expand...

There are several orders of magnitude in difference of scope and scale here.  None of those groups possess the money or the scope to actually bend and control the government - and I would include conservative groups such as pro-life groups in that statement.  Corporations and business are the 900 pound gorillas in this situation.  We have had to break up the oil companies already once, because their power was so corrosive that it was distorting the federal government. 

stopping "too big to fail" banks from wrecking the economy - conservatives still oppose

What does this even mean?
Click to expand...

Where have you been the last four years?

If you need a primer on how the economy cratered and the role of banking in causing that crash, then start here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/


Even the Chairman of the Dallas Federal Reserve says it is time to break up the banks:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/money-power-wall-street/top-fed-official-the-moment-is-now-to-break-up-big-banks/


strong 4th amendment issues such as blocking unreasonable search, surveillance, rendition - conservatives oppose;

Who just said the military has the right to detain Americans on American soil indefinitely? The NDAA is, by far, a worse violation of the 4th amendment than the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

Except that:
1. without the Patriot Act, there would have been no NDAA. The one laid the foundation for the other.
2. Conservatives are not up in arms over the NDAA anyhow. So far, the only groups voicing opposition are progressives and the occasional libertarian groups.

Let me just say that I expect this provision of the NDAA to be overturned on appeal.  The Supreme Court shot down almost every overreach of the ancien Bush regime; this new power grab also won't survive that process.  But as with all such processes, it may take years to finally resolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top