The Obama Administration and the Drive-By Media must be seeing the writing on the wall as it pertains to Obamacare...they're already polishing their excuses. The President is now speaking out against the court "legislating from the bench."
If you know history at all, you're smacking your head against the wall because that hurts far less than trying to find the logic in the President's statement. For a Constititional Law professor, this President doesn't have a clue about legal history. He had no issue with the Supreme Court invented a right to destroy one's unborn child in the womb and claim it has something to do with privacy. That wasn't legislating from the bench. The court potentially saying "No, you cannot force free people to buy a product" is somehow legislating from the bench?
Actually, Mr. President, that's called Judicial Review. You see, Congress doesn't have the right to pass whatever law they want, even by majority decision. We have rights, Mr. President, and those rights can't be legislated away with a law. (The idea of legislating away people's rights isn't a new one, by the way. You can see it in old newsreels. Of course they're tough to understand...because the narration is in German.)The fact is, Mr. Obama, you never had the right to require people to purchase health insurance by law. You also never had the right to force the individual states to expand Medicare and pay for it.
Not sure if you read that whole 10th Amendment thing in the Constitution, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, but that exhaulted document states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
The power to decide what product to purchase has not been delegated to the Federal Government. It was delegated to the States or to We the People. (I'd argue this is delegated only to us individual people.)
My friends, that is not Judicial Activism. This is Judicial Review. This is what the Supreme Court's job is...to review laws in question and decide if it's Constitutional. If the Supreme Court strikes this law down, it's doing it's job, Mr. President. Get over it.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
2 comments:
All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.
Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The essential difference between Judical Review and Judicial Activism is whether or not something is crafted, like distinction of trimesters for instance. THe Supreme Court simply saying "no" to a particular law is clearly not legislation from the bench.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. I think it's farcical how little this President understands the place of the Constitution. He actually seems to thinks as President he's the top branch with two subordinate branches. It's sad.
ReplyDelete