Presidential chutzpah. Well, at least you can admire him for that perhaps. After all, someone who graduated from Harvard Law School, edited the Harvard Law Review, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School must be familiar with Marbury v. Madison. As Wikipedia explains, it’s an important case:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional.” The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
And yet President Obama yesterday implicitly claimed never to have heard of it, allowing him to say regarding Obamacare that it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” step for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The precedents go back 209 years and, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out on “Special Report” last night, the Supreme Court has been overturning acts of Congress ever since, on average every 16 months. So overturning Obamacare would be about as unprecedented as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. Actually the precedents go back even further, as Alexander Hamilton mentioned the power of judicial review in Federalist Paper 78, written in 1788. The last president to seriously challenge the court’s power to overturn an act of Congress under the doctrine of judicial review was Andrew Jackson, who famously said after one decision he didn’t like, “The court has made its decision; now let it enforce it.”
The court has overturned laws based on the Commerce Clause as recently as 1995 (United States v. Lopez) and 2000 (United States v. Morrison). Both of those were relatively minor cases, although significant for putting limits on federal power under the Commerce Clause for the first time since the early New Deal. But major pieces of legislation have also been overturned. The National Recovery Act of 1933 was the last piece of legislation passed during the “Hundred Days.” Its purpose was, essentially, to cartelize the entire United States economy under the direction of the National Recovery Administration (the NRA, whose symbol was the famous blue eagle). Franklin Roosevelt called the legislation “the most important and far-reaching ever enacted by the American Congress.” But that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from overturning it in May 1935, by a vote of 9-0.
The National Recovery Act passed the House by a large majority and the Senate by 46-39. The “strong majority” mentioned by Obama in the passage of Obamacare did not exist. It passed the Senate 60-39 on Christmas Eve, when the Senate, briefly, had a filibuster-proof majority. But by the time a vote neared in the House, that filibuster-proof majority had vanished with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. So the House had to pass the Senate bill unchanged in order to get it to the President’s desk. Only much arm-twisting and deal-making allowed the bill to pass the House with a majority of only seven votes, 219-212. It garnered not a single Republican vote in either house, the first time so important a piece of legislation was passed on a totally partisan basis.
As I said, one can only admire his chutzpah. It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda. He can count on the mainstream media buying it, but will anyone else?
Maybe we could beat his lock on the MSM to spread his lies if 100,000 would stand outside the White House when Obama's in residence and shout "Liar! Liar! Liar!" Of course, the MSM would then say we were uncivil (and then go on to claim that Obama has never said a false word). Very frustrating. If you can't fool all of the people all of the time, when are people going to stop being fooled?
He's a pathological liar. A psychopathic con man with no conscience and incapable of empathy.. Harsh? I believe I've studied him more than most especially his body language, every photo of him and videos with the sound off. Narcissistic Personality Disorder only scratches the surface. n nSome of the politically incorrect themes I've used in my videos were discovered by these methods. Then I have some fun them or get frustrated and let off steam with the videos but it really isn't a laughing matter to me. n nThere are certain episodes that stand out in my mind. Prof Epstein, U of Chicago said he wasn't smart but had the ability to mimic intelligent conversation. During the campaign Michelle Obama had to admonish him to "feel", "feel" and emote. n nA psychopath can't feel, has no conscience and is a great mimic. It's arm chair psychology but it makes more sense than chutzpah. More information has come out that suggests that Obama is a modern day Manchurian candidate. I think his handlers have to realize by now that he's a loose cannon.. nThere wiil be few unscripted moments, town halls are long gone and what are press conferences? nYesterday's brief q and a show the danger of those moments. Obama could have a meltdown and the public will never know. That's why he'll probably win in Nov.
It is unfortunate that the entire psychiatric/psychoanalytic profession is in the tank for Obama . A first year resident could do a short work up of his formative years and background and find themself in a morass of malaise: completely abandoned by his father /mostly abandoned by his mother , a diversity charity case in super elitist high school and on and on . It is atruly frightening etiological path .BTW Obama's GPA is one of the reasons most academic work is submitted now under a SSN or otherwise masked ID .
The last paragraph of Mr. Gordon's post inspires an anti-Obama campaign slogan: Obama: No Lie Left Behind.
I cannot understand the reasons for Obama's comments. He clearly is aware of Marbury v Madison. He clearly knows the court can strike down legislation as unconstitional and that the importance or centrality of the law is no test. He clearly knows that his reference to the "nine unelected" is a tendentious swipe at the court's legitimacy. n nSo his saying what he did must, I infer, be tactical. But what tactic and toward what strategic end? My guess is his words were part of a campaign externally to pressure the court into holding up the ACA. So it's an extra legal attack on the court trying to put it under pressure in its own institutional self consciousness to hedge on what might be its opinion on the law's illegality. n nIf my guess at his tactic and his strategy is right, it seems beneath contempt, especially for someone with his background in law. It's pure partisan politics that would sacrifice the legitimacy of the court on the alter of politics ends, means be damned. n nI'm surprised there has been less outrage at this then there has been. Or maybe I've missed the outrage. n nAnd as a tactical and strategic matter, Obama's comments seem misconceived. Better to have uttered a few bromides and leave it at that. The court is quite self aware of its own institutional legitimacy and Chief Justice Robets Is particularly sensitive of that. My thought is that the justices will react badly to Obama's comments; and while the comments will not materially affect their opinions, they may serve to stiffen their spines a little, particularly if they are wavering at all at the prospect of the monumentality of striking down the law.
I agree this is a tactic, but thinking about it that way then, from your comment, I wonder if the tactic isn't directed at voters to create sympathy for Obamacare, or sympathy for a "grand and glorious" goal. If the court upholds the law, he wins because many might suppose he acted as the court's conscience and got them to do the right thing … or, if the court overturns the law, he wins because he's staked out the high ground and the court is just as bad and political as he warned everyone when he was trying to get them to do the right thing. n nWhat I'm saying should be preposterous — except that he gained a majority of the women's vote by attacking the Catholic church and, I'm reading, re-invigorated his black support by "if I had a son he'd look like that …" And that's on top of keeping the environmentalists by rejecting Keystone, which came after he kept the unions by pushing a jobs bill at Congress to give teachers and first responders unions more money.
You say "Better to have uttered a few bromides and leave it at that." and of course that's what most people would do. n nBut Obama never does that. He is the only president I am aware of who routinely denounces ordinary members of the public with whom he disagrees. Whereas most presidents will, as you say, utter some phrase such as "they're excercising their rights", etc. Not Obama, he just insults people or laughs at them. Remember the man with the big family who drove a big SUV, look up that video and watch our President condescend to a hard working, law abiding, voting American tax payer. n nHe tried to make a mockery of the Justices to their faces at the SOTU address. n nObama has NO CLASS and sane or crazy his behavior is a disgrace to the office of President. n nI certainly hope the voters have the sense to replace this mean-spirited, deluded man with his Republican opponent in November. I don't really care if you think the Republican is the next coming Cotton Mather or a spineless RINO the chances are excellent that whoever it is will have some respect for America and the American people. The current occupant of the WH certainly lacks both.
@ Keith, You make a good point that as well as, or primarily, Obama was addressing his comments to the public on the “win win” logic you set out.
And granting you that good point, it still seems like a dumb tactic to me.
Most people are against the law. So it’s hard for me to see how wins to championing it. And American opinion is so polarized, that save for the independents, his comments will bre loved by the wild left and reviled, rightly, by all the right.
So how will what he says play with independents?
And in the meantime he”s happy to mess with the court’s legitimacy for political ends, either the ones I noted or the ones you noted, or both. And that’s pretty bad in my books.
He and Holder consider themselves above the law. If he doesnt like the law he just ignores it. A few more months and the White House can be fumigated and we can try and repair the damage he has caused
Part of his strategy was forwarded this morning on NBC's "Today". Rather than just detailing the SCOTUS ruling on strip searches, Savannah Guthrie said, "An ideologically divided Supreme Court voted 5 to 4…" n nSo we now have it from "objective" NBC: This court is ideologically divided, so any decision that goes contrary to the whims of Mr. Obama must be blatant extremist judicial activism — and one would assume, subject to override by yet another executive order from Mr. Obama.
Well if NBC says. From NBC's lips to God's ears. MIght as well get your opinions from random remarks by bag women. Marvelous O would be wise not to push his luck with his extra-Constitutional enthusiasms.
The Court does not like to be pushed. Baiting the conservatives and implicitly threatening the swings will not work. Gore vs. Bush etc.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. n — Thomas Paine
amen! people thta do this are destroying the fabric of U.S. society. Politics should go only so far; especially in the President and especially while he holds the Office. He should be called on this (and many other blatent episodes of dishonest politicization(?)) regardless of what you feel about the issue he is politicizing. This is a major issue in itself.
…graduated from Harvard Law School, edited the Harvard Law Review, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School…. n nAffirmative Action student, Affirmative Action scholar, and finally Affirmative Action president
You will see Obama respect the Supreme Court when he has appointed all. Until then, anybody who does not bow to him is an enemy below scorn. Amazing that he ever learned anything as everything has to fit into his box of preconceived notions.
oh yeah, forgot, the hypocritical media censors posts. ok. hows this. obama is a socialist. he lies as a matter of policy. there are no values, rules or moral stringencies in his way. he does not care. he believes he is invulvernable. he will learn diferently but will do a great deal of damage to a gullible, naive public before he is brought to justice. nsuibne
Did you ever consider that Obama is an Affirmative Action Graduate of law school.
The next development to expect is that Obama will announce that for the first time in American history he as President has concluded that the workload for the Supreme Court is too heavy for nine justices and that we need a few more. Does he know his history or is it simply that he will do anything to advance his agenda and enhance his own power?
Sadly, Romney fits the stereotype picture of Republican that the Democrats portray – Just out for the rich. He talks about helping the "Middle Class" but his mouth and behavior rarely relate – for long. Romney hasn't the foggiest idea of what running a small business is like and living hand to mouth to survive. Unfortunately, nomination of somebody who bought the nomination by negative ads attacking his opponents and whose concept of being broke would be no rugs in his car elevator, will set the Republican party back years. Get accustomed to the thought of four more years of Obama and pray that no Supreme Court justices die and that there will be good (non-evangelical) senators elected to put roadblocks up to stop Obama's dedication to destroy the land of OPPORTUNITY.
"It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda." n nBrother, you said it! Still, he's far worse when he tells the truth about his beliefs.
Ha! I think the author misinterprets campaign rhetoric for legal argument.
Indeed. He rejects the basic principles of the constiutution. His mind is like that of the French Jacobins who were denounced by Edmund Burke and who ruthlessly eliminated all who stood in their path.
For Obama to admit that he hasn't heard of "Marbury vs. Madison" is to admit he cheated his way through law school. Or perhaps it is evidence that he was never really enrolled. That is a founding case in the history of the nation. BTW, despite his claims to have edited the Harvard Law Review he evidently never wrote a single opinion. That is unheard of in the history of the Review and makes me wonder what, if anything, this man did learn or do on his own besides experiement with cocaine.
He was elected "President" of the Harvard Law Review–not chosen as Editor-in-Chief. Big difference there. My impression is that the President of the Law Review was intended more-or-less as a cross between Prom King and a mascot.
On my blog recently, after a particularly bad day of economic setbacks for my family, I exorcised the demon that is Obama by repeating "You Lie Obama" over and over on my blog. I expect the black helicopters to come after me any day now.
I sure hope the members of SCOTUS have good security they can trust. I wouldn’t put anything past King Barry I.
at what point did Commentary evolve from a magazine of Jewish interest to a crud-pile in support of the most vile of right-wing agendas
right-wing? how about American mainstream?
I'm not sure what YOU mean by "agendas." Would you say? And then could you list "the most vile." I admit this is unlikely to win you any praise here, but I would like to hear specifics so that I may counter your thoughts (as put forth by other Democrats) in future comments on other articles. You see, I can't imagine anything I think as being vile (and certainly don't see myself as vile); so I'm sure whatever you list I'll be able to effectively argue against if I only knew what you find so vile. Thank you.
When Norman got a bee in his bonnet.
Obama clearly wasn't the smartest person in his class in law school. But I doubt he's forgot the most basic of Constitutional Law cases. Rather he is an extreme left wing ideologue and he simply doesn't care what the Constitution and case law says. Like other extreme left wing ideologues when he sees a threat to his agenda he seeks to threaten and intimidate. Obama is doing nothing less than launching an all out war on the Surpreme Court to intimidate one or more of the Justices to betray their oath to the Constitution and approve Obamacare. Now we are in the position that if the Surpreme Court does not overturn Obamacare as the entire nation expects it will be clear that Obama has intimidated the court, and we no longer have 3 independent branches of Government. We will have started down the path of tyrany.
Wow. Imagine if they forced you to pay for Rodeo Cowboy Poetry Festivals. n nOh wait. They already do. I mean they force us to pay for everything they spend tax money on. n nWe're paying for a whole lot of useless social bling.