Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 3, 2012
No, Diana Ross has nothing about which to worry. But perhaps Obama himself does, in light of demeaning, disrespectful and ignorant remarks toward and about the current members of the High Court as well as its treasured history.
For better or worse, the Supreme Court is the final word pertaining to legal disputes, and contrary to Obama’s description, the court is an equal branch in the federal triumvirate of the legislature, executive and judiciary.
In slamming the Supreme Court over the possibility of rejecting his signature piece of legislation known infamously as Obama-care, Obama expressed shock “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This is both rude and disrespectful, but not out of character for Obama, who lashes out at anyone or any entity that dare challenge his will.
Obama also wrongly stated that his health care plan “was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The margin of victory, two years ago, prior to the GOP sweep of the House, was a mere 219-212.
So outrageous is it that a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Obama Justice Department to pen a three-page, single-spaced, minimum, specific answer to “whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.” (www.foxnews.com) The administration’s homework assignment is due by noon Thursday CDT.
Treating his office as a monarchy/dictatorship, Obama said it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to somehow overturn the will of Congress, demonstrating his ignorance that it could be done at all. This, sadly, coming from a person who graduated from Harvard Law School, was head of the Harvard Law review and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This “oversight” is more than just a little disturbing.
In fact, the will of Congress, as Obama stated, has been overturned more than 160 times, by the Supreme Court, according to Fox News. The precedent setting case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is classic Con Law 101. (laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html)
And of course there is the debate over judicial review versus judicial activism. Obama, sensing defeat at the hands of the Supremes come June in what is likely to be a 5-4 verdict with the liberal justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor siding with Obama and the conservative justices siding with the Constitution. Obama is calling the Roberts court an activist court, which by definition couldn’t be further from the truth.
“Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges’ own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society…. [J]udges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent “trustees” on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws.” (www.uslegal.com)
The liberal justices are seeking to uphold an unconstitutional policy requiring the American people to purchase a product as demanded of them by the federal government – health insurance. This is direct violation of the Commerce Clause as indicated in the Constitution.
The conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, by declaring Obama-care unconstitutional will be exhibiting judicial restraint, the opposite of judicial activism by using their power of judicial review.
Judicial review is the “power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.” (www.britannica.com)
Government should be less intrusive in the people’s lives, not more; and as such, the use of judicial review to strike down legislation that reaches too far into the people’s private lives is both appropriate and expected.
However, Obama, forever seeking greater governmental authority over the people’s lives called it a “surprising reach” for the High Court to consider rejecting his legislative baby. This coming from the same so-called leader who referred to Obama-care as “not an abstract exercise,” while all but referring to the Constitution as “abstract.”
That Obama could refer to the Constitution as “abstract,” is demonstrative of his complete lack of understanding of the purpose of this document as well as its significance. The genius of the Founding Fathers was such that this founding document, aside from the Bill of Rights, has been changed but a mere 17 times, and considering prohibition and its repeal cancelling each other out, 15 times.
The Constitution is the foundation of what makes the United States a great nation and no president will be allowed to destroy it and replace it with a system of anti-business, anti-free market socialism where the government steals from its citizenry in an effort to provide for the illegals, shiftless and ne’er-do-wells. It is incumbent upon us to send Obama a message that this will never be tolerated, and that message must be sent this November 6 as we the people reclaim our nation.
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
No comments:
Post a Comment