them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm
Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role
Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.
This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.
That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.
Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.
This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3
them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bonestorm (04-04-2012)
Dung, what is your take on Ruth Marcus's comments towards Obama?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...XYrS_blog.html
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Put blame where it belongs
ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.
I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.
Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.
christiefan915 (04-04-2012)
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks