Obama's Attempt to be the SCOTUS, could it have ramifications?

Onceler said:
A lot of that equation is going to depend on the "will of the people." Obamacare could face challenges of course, on a variety of levels (as it does now). But, it could also become very entrenched very quickly, and change the dynamics of what you're talking about.

Certainly, no President would use this kind of strategy on 3rd rails like Medicare, or SS. If Obamacare becomes something many either like to have, or depend on, it gets a lot trickier...
Click to expand...
It doesn't even go into full effect until a year after this term. It will be very difficult for it to "become entrenched" at that level until after that.
 
Yurt said:
its a good analogy capt....but the executive branch does not get petitions for certiorari

there is a huge difference if you examine the different roles our brances play. when scotus denies cert, they don't make an express opinion, however, they essentially let the lower court (be it app. or dist.) ruling stand. so there was an adjudication. often times cert will be denied because not enough app. cts. have ruled one way or the other. its more complex than that...but i just wanted to point out, the executive branch does not have that power.

they are to enforce the laws. and if those laws conflict with constitution, they do not have to enforce them.
Click to expand...
Again, he hasn't chosen not to enforce the law. That isn't what has happened here.

He's punting. Again.

Nor does it mean that these laws will be struck down as a matter of course or that they will receive no defense. Just that the Justice Department will not attempt to defend it.
 
E=Damocles;779039]I'm thinking it may not be as rare any longer.
Click to expand...

far enough...but at this point it is still rare, would you agree?

I'm not arguing that he "can't" do this, I'm stating that I think it may cause his own plans problems, and that he probably should think it through a bit more before doing such things. If ObamaCare doesn't get a ruling from the SCOTUS during his Presidency I see the next guy using it almost immediately. Until now is my prediction.
Click to expand...

apparently i read your OP and title wrong....when you state "Obama's attempt to be the scotus"....that in my mind means he is overreaching and cannot do that. your proposition seemed to mean, that a president can take over the judicial branch.

if congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, regardless if signed by a prior president, i expect the president to DEFEND the constitution. in this case....the executive branch has determined that a legislative branch law is unconstitutional. the judicial branch has not ruled on the issue. now -- is the time for the judicial branch to step in. that is why we have 3 branches of government. imagine if we only had 2 branches....congress and executive fighting.


I think you are missing the question for the forest of "law" and the awesome "precedent" of ignoring supposedly unconstitutional law. First, he isn't ignoring this law, it is still in place.
Click to expand...

see above
 
Yurt said:
far enough...but at this point it is still rare, would you agree?



apparently i read your OP and title wrong....when you state "Obama's attempt to be the scotus"....that in my mind means he is overreaching and cannot do that. your proposition seemed to mean, that a president can take over the judicial branch.

if congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, regardless if signed by a prior president, i expect the president to DEFEND the constitution. in this case....the executive branch has determined that a legislative branch law is unconstitutional. the judicial branch has not ruled on the issue. now -- is the time for the judicial branch to step in. that is why we have 3 branches of government. imagine if we only had 2 branches....congress and executive fighting.




see above
Click to expand...
Well, as owner part of my posts are solely an attempt to get people to be active. ;)

Sometimes I'll title it in one way. However, my questions made it clear where I was going. At least I thought they did.

Do you think a Conservative elected in 2012 might simply decide not to defend ObamaCare?
 
Yurt said:
you talk like a moron who doesn't know history or judicial precedent.

it may be the "law"....but if the law is unconstitutional on its face....fuck it...google it and learn something

you're so smart
Click to expand...


Talk like a moran?

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face...????

Who the fuck determines if a law is unconstitutional on its face...YOU ?

Joe the Plumber?
Peter the Rabbit ?
Obama the Messiah?

Let me clue you in dude, ....none of you do....

A law is passed and IS constitutional on its face until it is challenged and ruled upon by the SCOTUS ...the courts....fuckin' period.

If I;ve got that wrong, just link me up to the proper ruling, Counselor....
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Well, as owner part of my posts are solely an attempt to get people to be active. ;)

Sometimes I'll title it in one way. However, my questions made it clear where I was going. At least I thought they did.

Do you think a Conservative elected in 2012 might simply decide not to defend ObamaCare?
Click to expand...

yes damo....you own the board and the copyright to every post here. at least according to current law and that boilerplate nonsense i agreed to when i signed up :)

yes, i do believe a conservative president could not sign off on funding obamacare. he or she could also choose not to enforce the penalty portion of obamacare.
 
bravo said:
Talk like a moran?

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face...????

Who the fuck determines if a law is unconstitutional on its face...YOU ?

Joe the Plumber?
Peter the Rabbit ?
Obama the Messiah?

Let me clue you in dude, ....none of you do....

A law is passed and IS constitutional on its face until it is challenged and ruled upon by the SCOTUS....fuckin' period.

If I;ve got that wrong, just link me up to the proper ruling, Counselor....
Click to expand...


so congress passes a law, that law is signed by the president.........the law states: any and all jews are to exterminated.

according to you, that law "IS constitutional"
 
Yurt said:
so congress passes a law, that law is signed by the president.........the law states: any and all jews are to exterminated.

according to you, that law "IS constitutional"
Click to expand...
According to the laws or the United States, that is exactly right....
it is the law....just as Blacks were determined to be 2/3 human or whatever the hell is was....just as Blacks were legally slaves ....etc.

We have a process to determine what is constitutionally legal...THE LAW.
if you have a problem with our constitution, change it...until then obey the fuckin' thing....



ps....I guess the rumor that you are a lawyer is freakin' busted at this point....
 
Damocles said:
Let's say that Billy-Bob runs against and defeats Obama in the next election.

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think ObamaCare is unconstitutional, therefore any challenge to the law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think that CO2 regulations set by the EPA are unconstitutional, any challenge to that law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Would Billy-Bob receive the pass from the media that this President is getting?
Click to expand...

congress can choose to override the president by presenting its own side to scotus
 
bravo said:
According to the laws or the United States, that is exactly right....
it is the law....just as Blacks were determined to be 2/3 human or whatever the hell is was....just as Blacks were legally slaves ....etc.

We have a process to determine what is constitutionally legal...THE LAW.
if you have a problem with our constitution, change it...until then obey the fuckin' thing....



ps....I guess the rumor that you are a lawyer is freakin' busted at this point....
Click to expand...

ah....yes...when you can't refute my points with law or logic....must try to personally insult me.

you obviously ignored the legal precedent i provided and the prior opinions in the same link i provided. if it makes you feel better to try and insult me in order to maintain your world view....keep at it....

you and many libs on this board have that in common
 
I am just wondering where all the screams are from the people who screamed bloody fucking murder every time Bush used a signing statement. (Signing statements are an approximate equivalent to what Obama is doing.)

That said, IMO there should be a method by which a sitting president can expedite a challenge in the courts against any law they judge to be unconstitutional. While the president, indeed, should make a stance against such laws they believe to violate the Constitution, at the same time the President does NOT have the authority to unilaterally declare a law to be unconstitutional - that authority lies in the judicial branch of government, and NOT the executive. Simply stating the law is unconstitutional and therefore will not be enforced while waiting for a court challenge that may never come is, itself, unconstitutional; as it is a violation of the separation of powers.
 
Yurt said:
ah....yes...when you can't refute my points with law or logic....must try to personally insult me.

you obviously ignored the legal precedent i provided and the prior opinions in the same link i provided. if it makes you feel better to try and insult me in order to maintain your world view....keep at it....

you and many libs on this board have that in common
Click to expand...
You're a moron....and you can groan my posts to your hearts content....

You actually think that because YOU don't think a law passed by our Congress is Constitutional, it matters to the rest of the country...
Who the fuck are you?
Mr. One Man Supreme Court ?

We are a county of laws as agreed upon by Congress, the President and ultimately by the Supreme Court if necessary....and your voice, as a single person, is of little consequence without support.......its called ...democracy....
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
not a proper analogy as SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. here, SCOTUS has not ruled. not only does precedent allow him to not defend unconstitutional laws, it has been the practice of this country for over a hundred years.
Click to expand...

You're right...poor analogy.

Megyn Kelly on the O'Reilly show tonight made the better one.

The next president can decide that Obamacare is unconstitutional and just decide to not fund it.
 
Damocles said:
He is the first to use it solely for partisan reasons. Did you know that this is one of the charges that got the first impeached President impeached?
Click to expand...

You are really jumping the shark Damo...just because an outlier Federal judge issued a poorly written and ultra-partisan ruling, it does not make the President an outlaw. Even a Federal judge in Mississippi who was appointed by George W. Bush threw out the lawsuit. And Vinson's ruling is in the minority of rulings to date. The President and his administration have the obligation to serve the needs of the people, not the right wing lunatic fringe's attempt to usurp his authority.

The case will be decided by the Supreme Court. If the President then refuses to follow the ruling, you have a case.
 
bravo said:
You're a moron....and you can groan my posts to your hearts content....

You actually think that because YOU don't think a law passed by our Congress is Constitutional, it matters to the rest of the country...
Who the fuck are you?
Mr. One Man Supreme Court ?

We are a county of laws as agreed upon by Congress, the President and ultimately by the Supreme Court if necessary....and your voice, as a single person, is of little consequence without support.......its called ...democracy....
Click to expand...

you're the pissy idiot ignoring the constitution and the law. according to you the constitution comes second....:rolleyes:

that of course is wrong, the constitution is the highest law in the land, not congressionally passed laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top