Con-Law Fool

[treefish]

Obama is supposed to be a "constitutional law professor", or so goes the liberal mantra. He's smart, you see. Just like all progressives.

Well, Obama is either nothing more than a second rate hack with no understanding of our system, or he is intent on undermining it, which would make him a liar about the oath he took. You see, this second rate fool doesn't understand judicial review.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...alth-care-law/

Or he doesn't want to.

Any First year law student knows about Marbury v Madison and judicial review - recognized since 1803. But not the O'fool, apparently.

I hope that LL'ers aren't so gullible as to still believe he is legitimate!

[YWAHW]

Perhaps this complaint should be lodged with the institution responsible for bestowing President Obama with such recognition.

[samwise]

Obama is a piece of shit.

Need me to explain what shit is?

[YWAHW]

I had another thought to chew on.

Maybe the President did not study law and specifically constitutional law to honor it, but rather to find it's weaknesses and flaws to take advantage of them.

[Thane36425c]

There have been a number of threats made against the Supreme Court in the last couple of weeks, including some by Senators. I hope they do strike down Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate, just to see what the would be dictator does.

[Bashman]

Originally Posted by YWAHW

I had another thought to chew on.

Maybe the President did not study law and specifically constitutional law to honor it, but rather to find it's weaknesses and flaws to take advantage of them.

dude, that's some spooky shit right there

[bed_wetting_liberal]

In context, here's what Obama said:

So there is not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this, and I hope that is not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately, I am confident 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. I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow return or overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Here’s a pretty good example. Well, I am confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step. As I said, we are confident this will be over, this will be upheld. As I said, we are confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

How different are Obama's comments than those of just about every other president since 1803 who have disagreed with the Court? Like when President Bush said:

Our Founders gave the judicial branch enormous power. It is the only branch of government whose officers are unelected. That means judges on the federal bench must exercise their power prudently -- cautiously -- you might even say, conservatively.

[treefish]

Hey BWL, do you believe
1) That there are such things as unconstitutional laws?
2) That the court should strike down unconstitutional laws?

or do you believe that whatever congress passes must stand?

Do you understand that the reason that federal judges are appointed for life, and not elected, is to keep them free from political influences so that they may exercise their judicial analysis free from fear of political retribution?

Obama is attempting to intimidate the court, and infuse tension and polarity between the American peoples. He is not attemptint to extol the virtues or constitutionality of his hall-mark legislation, but is trying to vilify those who oppose it. That is because fundamentally, he is a bad man. Wake up - Obama does not have America's best interests at heart. He is pushing for a radical revision of America. Wake up.

[Dat1111]

Originally Posted by YWAHW

I had another thought to chew on.

Maybe the President did not study law and specifically constitutional law to honor it, but rather to find it's weaknesses and flaws to take advantage of them.

Im starting to believe thats the sole reason for it

[jt88]

Bush's comment is as wrong as Obama's, anyone who has taken a law class and studied the Supreme Court knows while they are the supreme law of the land, they are virtually powerless and can be ignored by the other branches, bet you didn't know that did you? There is no statement anywhere in the constitution that the Executive branch has to follow the orders of the Judicial, there are many many ways they can blatantly ignore a ruling.