It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

page: 12
88
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   


LOL. I should sure as hell hope that the SCOTUS has the authority to say if something is unconstitutional. I mean...who the hell else would? I really wonder where the hell some people get their ideas from.
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


First of all, if you read my prior posts, you will see my argument that the power of the SCOTUS to declare laws unconstitutional is not in the Constitution, nor was it the intention of the founding fathers to grant them that power. That power was self appointed as a result of the Marberry v. Madison case.
If Congress passed a law that was unconstitutional, the remedy for that would be that the President would veto and if the President failed to veto, if the President signed it, the remedy for that would be that the people would be sufficient horrified by it that they would throw the bums out and replace them with people who would change the law. In other words, the people would be the arbiters of what was and wasn't constitutional.

Second..I'm not the only one who holds this view. People much more knowledgeable on the subject have expressed these same things.
President Lincoln in his inaugural address said, "...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
FDR tried to bring an end to Judicial Review.
The current Stanford University Dean of Law wrote a book on the subject, "The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review"
The founding fathers debated this issue at great length, you can read the Federalist Papers and Madison's notes on the Convention.
It was a heated debate back then...and it still is today.
Peace....




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by memnoch25
 


I have been reading your posts and even responded to one. Your fallaciousness is palpable in that there are clearly implied powers as well as express powers. You seem to want to limit the three branches of power to only those that are express, but if this were done this would render the "Necessary and Proper Clause" meaningless.. The implied power of Judicial Review comes with The Bill of Rights. While Congress has been expressly granted the power to "make law" this use of language becomes maddeningly ambiguous when comparing that against The First Amendment. Congress shall "make law" and yet Congress "Shall make no law..."

If Congress willfully ignores, or perhaps through "honest ignorance" enacts legislation that abridges speech, or the freedom of religion, or the imposition of religion, peaceable assembly, or the right to a redress of grievances, this is unconstitutional and a violation of peoples rights that preexist government. The First Amendment, by its very express language, is not a grant of any right(s), but rather an express prohibition on Congress. If Congress ignores this prohibition and unlawfully enacts legislation trampling these expressly enumerated rights, and the President refuses to veto this unlawful legislation and signs it into "law" the People have every right to turn to the courts for a redress of grievances, and the implied power gives the courts the power of judicial review.

Further, the People are not helplessly bound by Constitution to accept this unlawfulness in hopes that a limited election process will correct the problem, and jury's - in spite of what many lower court judges argue until they are blue in the face - can nullify the legislation by refusing to convict. Judges may huff and puff and threaten to blow the house down, but if a jury engages in nullification there is not a thing anyone can do about it. No jury panel has ever been convicted of nullification. So, the message you keep shouting is a false one and reveals a lack of understanding of not only Constitutional principles, but the actual law itself. Law came before our Constitution and this is why the Bill of Rights - which includes a Ninth Amendment expressly denying government the authority to deny or disparage any rights not enumerated - was written to begin with.


edit on 3-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by memnoch25
 


Ok, I'll bite.

If the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to determine what laws are unconstitutional...

Then what would be the purpose of it?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555


The entire thing was smoke and mirrors.

It's not about Health Care anyway. It's about power and control. Had it been about Health Care, they would have opened up competition between States and put in place Tort Reform. They all say they believe in that and yet it was left out of the Bill. They know how gullible their partisan base is and they hope enough of the rest of us are stupid also.

Why is it that Obama supporters have not noticed that Health Care costs have risen way faster under Obama Care than before? They can't all be that illiterate, so I assume they don't actually care, it's all an act.

If you could put all the rabid Obama supporters into a room and ask them; if you could make Obama a Dictator for a few years would you vote yes, how many would raise their hands? Plenty I'm betting. That's how all the worlds most vile Dictators started.

Germany was a Free Democratic State when Hitler took over. Strangely enough he had more in common with the Left than the Right. He was for big government and governmental control of everything. He was for the government regulation of business and picking winners and losers. Sound familiar? He used fear and hate to divide the country with one group against another. Does that also sound familiar?


Thanks for your post.

It gives me hope knowing 'you're' out there.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Correct. I'm a HUGE fan of hand-ups...but I loathe hand-outs. I just don't understand why we have such a hard time telling the difference between the two any more.


I believe "hand-ups" became "hand -outs" through the development of an entitlement mentality - people receiving "hand-ups" came to think of them as entitlements, and a permanent condition. It is now becoming ingrained in the American psyche, much to our detriment. People are increasingly beginning to think they are somehow "due" access to other folks' money. That will eventually wreck the economy, the moral fiver of America, and the drive for independence - including independent thought. We cab=n see the signs of rot already, all around us.



More than anything else this militarization of our "police" forces scares the bejeebies out of me the most. Hopefully we have a Julius Ceasar or two in the military that will just turn a couple of those damn carriers around and bring them "across the Rubicon" to protect our citizens from our own government right here at home.


You aren't the first to notice that - it's been a concern in certain circles for a number of years, since SWAT teams started carrying assault rifles and wearing military garb, along with local departments purchasing tanks and tank-like vehicles. There is definitely something out of whack there, and it is a radical departure from the traditional Law Enforcement role, as well as a blurring of the lines between police and military, which Posse Comitatus was supposed to clearly delineate. Posse Comitatus isn't such an obstacle to governmental entities any more though, is it?



You would think the day has got to be pretty close. I personally found it a bit fishy that all those Navy Seals were shot down a couple of months after we allegedly "got" Bin Laden. One would think the rest of the Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and Green Berets gotta be thinking the same thing...right?


That would be a subject for U2U,



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I cannot wait till this moron is out of office. I do believe intimidation and threatening others is against the law. Since he seems to be above all of our other laws, guess this wouldn't be any different. He's really pushing the envelope on the evils a politician can get away with.
edit on 3-4-2012 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

LOL. I should sure as hell hope that the SCOTUS has the authority to say if something is unconstitutional. I mean...who the hell else would?

I really wonder where the hell some people get their ideas from.


They get it from a desire to twist and torture their preferred conclusion from a set of facts that do not support that conclusion.

It's kind of like a clown twisting a dog out of balloons - yeah, it may have some superficial resemblance to a dog, but one shouldn't rely on it to guard the house.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CantSay

YOU PEOPLE (OP) JUST DON'T GET IT!! THE US PEOPLE NEED AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE! GREED IS AT PLAY HERE! CONSERVATIVES HAVE BRAINWASHED THE POPULOUS TO HATE THE VERY THING THEY'VE NEEDED FOR DECADES! EVERYONE MATTERS! SOCIAL MOBILITY MATTERS!



I don't need "affordable health care" (as if this law provides that!) I need a pony. Can I write my congress critter and have him pass a law that you owe me a pony?

That'll be ok with you, right? You seem not to have a problem digging in other folks' pockets to supply your own desires, and so the reverse would be fair, too.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE


President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.


Really? Who does this guy think he is? He does not hold sway over the Supreme Court. He does not hold sway over Congress. Last I checked there were THREE distinct branches of government, and he is only ONE of them. Sorry, did I learn this wrong in school?

He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.


To hear that Obama "questioned how an 'unelected group of people' could overturn a law approved by Congress" is a real jaw dropper.

Wasn't he supposed to be something of a constitutional scholar? Sounds like he skipped most of his constitutional law classes, inckuding Con Law 101. If he had attended any he'd know how utterly lame that statement is.

Deciding the constitutionally of laws enacted by Congress in cases properly raising such issues is one of the primary roles of the Supreme Court. Overturning unconstitutional laws, like Obamacare, is the Supreme Court's job.
edit on 4/4/2012 by dubiousone because: Spelling & content correction



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 



The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.



Dear Barry O,

It's called "Checks and Balances". It's worth a look some day when you get the free time, perhaps next February. You know,.. so you don't look like a complete and total moron .

With Love,

NuT


edit on 4-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
The Supreme Court members ARE voted into office.

In case you are ignorant of how things work.

The President picks someone to fill a seat.

Congress goes through the vetting process.

Then if the President has a Super Party in Congress they can pass anyone they want... Just like the last one on posted on the court. If Congress is really the representative of the people They listen to the people and what they are told. They make their decision.

Then they VOTE. Yes, VOTE on the candidate, and if there are more yes votes to no votes they are appointed to the Supreme Court.


So yes they are Voted into office.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by memnoch25
 


Ok, I'll bite.

If the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to determine what laws are unconstitutional...

Then what would be the purpose of it?


To vote against the 2nd Amendment when the POTUS is ready to seize full control of the Republic?

Err, I meant the Democracy.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yes, I also provided a FOX link as well.

And again, for like the fifth time or something. Your example of the grand scientific polls of 900 people is just what the liberal doctor ordered.

And yes, the election is just around the corner. And by the Grace of God, 0bama is shown the door.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xieon
 


Low approval ratings, but with low unemployment and low gas prices.
Also, they were during times of war. basically in the midst of or near the beginning.

0bama's static military action is not that. American's are out of work, out of money and exhausted with the idea of war, as Iran and N. Korea come into play as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


I thought he was half black, half white?
Or does that just come into play when politically expedient?

He also ran under the guise of a transparent Govt and Conservative like financial responsibility. So, I guess that a Smurf could have won as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Xieon
 


Low approval ratings, but with low unemployment and low gas prices.
Also, they were during times of war. basically in the midst of or near the beginning.

0bama's static military action is not that. American's are out of work, out of money and exhausted with the idea of war, as Iran and N. Korea come into play as well.



Unemployment levels and gas prices are low??

Is that a typo?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That was in regards to the other elections, not 0bama.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flint2011
 


I thought he was half black, half white?
Or does that just come into play when politically expedient?

He also ran under the guise of a transparent Govt and Conservative like financial responsibility. So, I guess that a Smurf could have won as well.



You should also know it's politically expedient to run a campaign as a moderate who is fiscally conservative as well.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That was in regards to the other elections, not 0bama.


/facepalm




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Wasn't he supposed to be something of a constitutional scholar? Sounds like he skipped most of his constitutional law classes, inckuding Con Law 101. If he had attended any he'd know how utterly lame that statement is.


I would say the best way to circumvent the constitution would be to become a constitutional scholar. Not sure if he is the scholar....him or the people behind him calling the shots.




top topics



 
88
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join