Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I often wonder how much Obama really does know about the Constitution, the very subject he lectured to college students about. Is there really a chance that he thinks he can destroy the Constitution with all his machinations? It sure looks like that is the case.
***Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)***
One more quote from the link that I find very acceptable to non-progressives would be, One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.
The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)
With Obama getting spanked by a judge just shows me why he was such a failure as a lawyer.
Do you mean Obama who is a constitutional attorney signed a law into place that he knew was illegal?
So he signed a document into law knowing it was not only illegal but now he finds out his only accomplishment in 4 years is going down soon so he attacks the Supremes before they even decide anything like he did?
I am glad someone finally put a whoopin on Obama for his nasty unprofessional comments and called him out for what he truly is.
Like I have sold over and over, Obama did not go to law school to follow the law, he went to learn how to destroy it. I was right again!
I often wonder how much Obama really does know about the Constitution, the very subject he lectured to college students about. Is there really a chance that he thinks he can destroy the Constitution with all his machinations? It sure looks like that is the case.
Give him one of your old 9th grade tests, just to check.
With Obama getting spanked by a judge just shows me why he was such a failure as a lawyer.
Do you mean Obama who is a constitutional attorney signed a law into place that he knew was illegal?
So he signed a document into law knowing it was not only illegal but now he finds out his only accomplishment in 4 years is going down soon so he attacks the Supremes before they even decide anything like he did?
I am glad someone finally put a whoopin on Obama for his nasty unprofessional comments and called him out for what he truly is.
Like I have sold over and over, Obama did not go to law school to follow the law, he went to learn how to destroy it. I was right again!
This President will forever be mocked as the "Constitutional Scholar Who Signed The Most Consequential Unconstitutional Law In 80 Years."
I wonder how many posts I can dredge up touting the President as a constitutional genius? LOL
The topic is titled "Obama may well be the administration's worst lawyer," and goes on to refer to Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made in 1972. By my calculation, Obama was 10 years old then. What does Roe v Wade have to do with Obama's lawyering?
Moreover, the Coulter writes in her column that the "right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution." However, the Constitution also says nothing about the Supreme Court having the right of declaring a law unconstitutional also -- that was a power the Supreme Court gave itself under Marbury v Madision.
But if you want to expand this into saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has the right to decide that, the Supreme Court has ruled in Daimler Chrysler v Cuno, 547 US 332, 341 (2006) that the courts have no business deciding cases that are not in controversy. Since the individual mandate is not in effect, there is no case in controversy. Thus, the Supreme Court has no judicial review authority here.
Give him one of your old 9th grade tests, just to check.
I can't do that since I only prepared tests for the 12th graders I taught about the Constitution. I would like to see how well he could do with some of those tests, though.
The topic is titled "Obama may well be the administration's worst lawyer," and goes on to refer to Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made in 1972. By my calculation, Obama was 10 years old then. What does Roe v Wade have to do with Obama's lawyering?
Moreover, the Coulter writes in her column that the "right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution." However, the Constitution also says nothing about the Supreme Court having the right of declaring a law unconstitutional also -- that was a power the Supreme Court gave itself under Marbury v Madision.
But if you want to expand this into saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has the right to decide that, the Supreme Court has ruled in Daimler Chrysler v Cuno, 547 US 332, 341 (2006) that the courts have no business deciding cases that are not in controversy. Since the individual mandate is not in effect, there is no case in controversy. Thus, the Supreme Court has no judicial review authority here.
Try reading the document, we call the Constitution of the United States and then read Coulter's piece and maybe you could understand what she was talking about.
While you are at it I will call your attention to the words of the Honorable Andrew Jackson when he tried to invalidate Marbury v. Madison that was made over 20 years before Andy spoke when he said the court has made its order so now let us see them enforce it and promptly failed to do so. I see a lot of this in what Obama is attempting now--the placing of the Executive branch over the Judicial branch which is surely not what the Framers said.
An example of what I am saying is the political cartoon in my morning paper this morning that showed three branches of a tree with two of them, the Legislative and Executive reaching upward with the lower of the three, the courts below the others. One branch had only one bird on it and the lower one had just 4 or 5 but there was also bird crap on the limb. Once The One gets rid of the Supreme Court he will get back to work on the Congress. Surely all of you can see that those two groups stand in his way in so many ways.
As for Coulter's references to abortion, she just listed all the arguments the progressives have used to show that the Constitution can be used to defend Roe v. Wade. Did either of the other branches ever fail to do their part to stand up for Roe even though they didn't like it? You guys need old Andy Jackson back to help you out with Obamacare.
The topic is titled "Obama may well be the administration's worst lawyer," and goes on to refer to Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made in 1972. By my calculation, Obama was 10 years old then. What does Roe v Wade have to do with Obama's lawyering?
Moreover, the Coulter writes in her column that the "right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution." However, the Constitution also says nothing about the Supreme Court having the right of declaring a law unconstitutional also -- that was a power the Supreme Court gave itself under Marbury v Madision.
But if you want to expand this into saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has the right to decide that, the Supreme Court has ruled in Daimler Chrysler v Cuno, 547 US 332, 341 (2006) that the courts have no business deciding cases that are not in controversy. Since the individual mandate is not in effect, there is no case in controversy. Thus, the Supreme Court has no judicial review authority here.
Good Lord. You really went down that path? LOL
And we should agree with you under what premise? That you are a trained lawyer with experience defending Constitutional Law.
I didn't think so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
