“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Barack Obama said.

I am guessing that if we didn’t have courts that overturned unconstitutional laws passed by democratically elected legislatures, we would still be living in times where blacks wouldn’t be allowed to own property, or vote, or have the civil rights afforded to all Americans. We would be subject to laws that wouldn’t have even allowed Barack Obama to be elected president. Isn’t liberal hypocrisy delicious?   

Aaron Shipley, Bloomington

More from pantagraph.com

(38) comments

outoftowner

It's interesting that had Obamacare been put forth in the form of a constitutional ammendment, it would not stand a chance of being passing. This is clear by the number of states currently opposing it and a number of polls that show that it is rejected by well over half of people polled.

Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor
Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor

Exactly. We are long past the point where some big Constitutional Convention can be called to destroy the Bill of Rights as the Liberal Left wishes to do. They will never be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or any of the others. Their only hope is to be the people in charge when court appointments come open so they can attempt to pack the court with their political picks who will legislate from the bench.

Turner Joy

Most any statute that was over two or three sentences long would never pass in the form of a constitutional amendment because there would be endless bickering over the wording.

MWA

It is not unprecedented nor extraordinary. Read the history of King FDR's second New Deal that was rejected by the US Supreme Court. Democrat FDR had control of both the House and Senate (much like BO had control of Congress when Obamacare was passed) and even tried to "pack the court" with Dems. when they went against his reign. FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act was declared to be unconstitutional by the court and he had the gall to try to force some of the "nine old men" off the court- so that he could appoint Dems. That failed, so he tried to get Congress to change the number of judges on the court. That also failed and then in his fourth term, he died in the arms of his mistress in Warm Springs, GA. It is reported that the US Secret Service had a helluva time getting her and her belongings out of there in time to make correct appearances for the public.

The upcoming decision will be 5-4 to invalidate the entire healthcare federal mandate to buy a product- namely insurance. There are other examples of political over reach by Congress and the President that have been declared unconstitutional, too. It is simply how the founders set up our fantastic system of checks and balances. Obama did his cause with the court no good when he upbraided them publicly during his "State of the Union Message", too. The American Revolution got rid of one King- George III.

McLeaner
McLeaner

I dont think it will be that "clean" of a decision. I figure that there will be a 5-4 majority on one or two of the more controversial aspects (not calling which way it will go), but that the bulk of the opinion will be a plurality with a mishmash of concurrences, dissents, and special concurrences. This opinion will be a mess, open to multiple interpretations (and thus more litigation) and it won't fully and finally resolve anything, Both sides will claim victory and both sides will decry the outcome.

catlbyer16

Just a minuet here. Not every thing in this bill is bad. Think for a moment about the mothers that just got a child insurance that could not get it before. How would you personally like to look her in the eye and explain to her why losing her new insurance is a good thing for her and her children! Adjust this law, yew. Through it away, no!

Responsibleone

Appears to be a bit of fear mongering here.....Why does someone have a child they cannot afford to pay for? Oh, yea! Because they want the government to pay for it! Oh, silly me....
Where is personal responsibility ion this world?

ChubbyAlaskaGriz
ChubbyAlaskaGriz

I think you''re giving far too much credit to those who have unplanned-for offspring. People get pregnant and have kids because bumping uglys feels good and because they have little self-control. Little or no thought goes into it. Squeezing out babies requires no plan- much less motive. The government safety-net is nothing but an after-thought mess-cleaning remedy, w/ decent intentions- but one that contributes to the lessening of "uh-oh!" factor that humans instinctively feel- or OUGHT to feel, when they put themselves in this dilemma. If that safety net were gone- I wonder... I just wonder...

Turner Joy

You can certainly find places around the world that have no safety net to see what might happen.

CaptainZoomZoom

Good point

The other dave

The point that people seem to miss is that the Supreme Court does not look at whether a law is good or benefits some people. It looks at whether the law and the process to enact the law is constitutional. For years some people (liberals) have insisted that our government not legislate morality and common sense. Interesting that they seem to flip flop that view now.

catlbyer16

I predict that if this current law is thrown out, we will see a new rush of insurance premiums go up dramatically. The insurance companies will do this before limits can be put into place, or new laws enacted. Katie, bar the door!

The Cat2

Well ObumblerCare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care) and its passage is a pack of lies anyway. First, it is a compulsory health insurance law and has nothing to do really with "health care" (and may actually reduce real health care delivery), Second, it isn't "affordable" since we now know that the CBO has "revised" the cost and now shows it to be double the original "estimate" (bet that that is also an gross underestimate). Nor will it "reduce costs" when you mandate "free" contraception and the like. Third, it wasn't passed by a "democratically elected legislature" since the house that was the real struggle to get it through (the Senate) had five members appointed to fill vacancies by Dem governors and one member elected by a Republican electorate and jumped parties so likely did not represent those who sent him to the Senate. In addition, some members were "bribed" with special treatment like the "Kansas kickback" and the bill "passed: by the House in the final vote was not the bill the members originally passed. Lastly, the claim for the mandate is the Feds can do this under the Commerce Clause when the Feds specifically in the past legislated that health insurance could NOT be sold across state lines and isn't really a product involved in "interstate commerce". That doesn't even address the lies that Obumbler has pushed like "keeping you insurance" or "keeping your doctor". .

110100100
110100100

Wait a tick, I thought the right wingers were applauding this idea when Newt proclaimed he would haul “activist” judges before Congress.

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.

That said, they’re both clowns. Thomas Jefferson said that "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." It is the courts that prevent this “mob rule”.

2 cents

Well I'm sure that all of you have read the Obama Care Program and it's policies from cover to cover and can recite the laws and how they will affect everyone verbatim! If you have not please refrain from complaining about things you've only heard on fox news.

Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor
Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor

I would gladly read cover-to-cover any bill passed by congress so long as they, as creators of law, do their due diligence and read the same bills before they vote on them. Oh, wait, you mean they didn't do that? ;)

rpm49

Even if Obamacare is not fully read it is the provisions that have been read that are considered unconstitutional and are being decided upon for constitutionality. Ask those who voted for it if they can recite the laws and how they will affect everyone verbatim from cover to cover.

Liberalminded

Every conservative here is legally trained and has read the law. Right.

onewhowonders

Oh I am sure that is not true also... But it is obvious none of the liberals have read it nor the applicable tax code changes :)

outoftowner

Would that Nancy Pelosi had read the bill before it was passed.


"We have to pass the law to find out what's in it."


Brilliant legislative philosophy there.

Turner Joy

Based on the questions that were asked by the justices and the tone of those questions, it seems to be the consensus that the law will be overturned. If it is overturned it will be very interesting to read the basis for that opinion. It could be on some very narrow grounds that no one seems to be anticipating or it could call into question all manner of what has been considered settled law. For those who are rooting for it to be overturned, be careful what you wish for. Both conservatives and liberals have used the authority of the federal government to advance what is important to them. If that authority is diminished, there may be unforeseen consequences that cut across the ideological spectrum.

Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor
Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor

Obama is already setting the tone for the overturning of his law. He's already warned the Supremes not to do it. That was just a campaign speech to start the spin where he will blame 4 rich white Republicans and 1 confused Black man. He might stoop so low as to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, not in those exact words, but we all know that is how the Democrats feel about Justice Thomas.

Answer

Obama really lied on this one, just like the other letter said. But I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what the Supreme Court says. They recently voted to allow police to strip search anyone for any misdemeanor like jay walking or not wearing a seatbelt. Also they ruled that corporations are just like people when it comes to giving money to politicians, which means corporations can buy any office they want.

Chadwick Snow

How the Supreme Court is viewed depends on whose ox is being gored. During the '50s and '60s you saw billboards reading "Impeach Earl Warren". That came from groups with a conservative bent who had disdain for expansion of the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause with regard to barring racial discrimination in public places or the extension of rights of the accused (Miranda warnings), the abolition of capital punishment statutes and other judicial activism. Their arguments were similar to what Obama is stating; the legislative branch is duly elected so their decisions should stand.

Most of the posters here are spot on. The power of judicial review has endured since the late 18th century when the Court struck down the midnight appointments. Obama knows better and he is simply attempting to play on public sympathies if the Affordable Care Act is struck down in part or in whole. So the letter states the obvious. Yes, federal and state statutes can be overturned by appellate courts if deemed in violation of Constitutional provisions.

navysvo

I have to laugh when liberals UPHOLD a violation of the Constitution just to take Obama's side. What a waste.

crunch-o-matic
crunch-o-matic

....runner up for the laugh fest is republicans complaining about activist judges. i cant get enough of how dumb people are

The Peanut Gallery

Look in the mirror.

onewhowonders

@ 2 cents,
I have read it, I have also read the changes to the tax code to "fund" it. It paints a very bleak future for all small business nationwide. No one will be able to afford to compete with big business

The Peanut Gallery

to MoralityDoesntDiscriminate who posted about 50 minutes ago
"... Interesting. This article is very covertly, yet blantently race baiting. The snicker at the end gives a subtle hint of the writers ironic wish, in addition to the conundrum of Obama's statement..."

My reading of the letter is very different from yours. I believe that the writer was simply noting that, prior to the Supreme Court's implementation of civil rights legislation, unconstitutional state laws were enforced, with racial animus. Morality may not discriminate, but condescension may render one blind.

onewhowonders

Morality does not discriminate. Your comment is racist.

MoralityDoesntDiscriminate

How so?

onewhowonders

The guy wrote a letter that had nothing to do with the genetic make up of society. You twisted and skewed it into a race thing.

Liberalminded

The writer's examples were not the result of court decisions but Constitutional amendments ratified by the states

ironeagle

Why could the Supreme court use the Commerce Clause to get rid of Segragation laws very Simple IT DID INVOLVE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See there where seperate cars for Blacks and Whites in the South. The States in the South claimed they were Equal yet the cars for the WHITES had AC in all of them and the Sleepers where NEW. The Blacks were forced to ride in cars that were not equipped with AC had the Sleepers where not new they had been built around WW1. Also Blacks were NOT allowed access to the Dining car there for they were NOT TREATED EQUAL and the Supreme Court had Standing. See when your forcing people to only ride in certain cars and not giving them the Same Treatment because of COLOR and you Travel across a State line YOU ARE IN VIOLATION of the INTERSTATE Commerace Clause of the Constition of the US and then the Feds can Step in. Last thing on this the Eastern RR's and the Western RR's NEVER did stuff like this to Minorities. So the RR's of the South were the only ones that did stuff like this and only in the Deep southern States.

The Death Penalty was overturned as it was Declared a Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Miranda came about as cops forced people to Violate the 5th Amendment to get the Beatings to Stop.

McLeaner
McLeaner

"Isn’t liberal hypocrisy delicious?"

No party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Nor is either party the least bit innovative when it attacks the SCOTUS for reviewing duly enacted legislation. Since Marbury v. Madison the other two branches have dutifully attacked the SCOTUS's inherent power to strike down laws that violate the strictures of the constitution. It doesn't even require that the Court's make up be of a different party than the critic (see: Eisenhower's quote re: his mistakes while in office).

Lame_Stream_Media_5
Lame_Stream_Media_5

I hope the Supreme Court follows the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. It's interesting how the writer put a racial twist on a constitutional issue! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? "passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"? It was RAMMED down our throats with closed door meetings with only Democrats. You must be an Ed Schultz MSNBC fan!

CaptainZoomZoom

Arron Shipley, you are living proof that independent thinking is impossible for some people. Everything you said is asbolute rubbish published in the form of tlalking points for left wing liberals. You say a strong majority passed this law? 7 votes is hardly a strong majority when we are talking about 495 votes being cast. Have another glass of your Obamaid and keep entertaining those of us who are informed with your juvenile letters.

annieoakley
annieoakley

Aaron CORRECT! But you forgot something. Women of any color being allowed to vote or to own a business or own their own homes. Back in the day, the only way a woman was allowed to own a business was a brothel. Correct? If a woman back then was married and her and her husband owned a home, if he died, no matter the reason, she lost her home.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.