Category Archives: Barack Obama

Smacked By A Liberal Girl

Barack Obama, Constitution, Federalism, Healthcare, Justice, Law, The Courts

The Ass had his formidable ears smacked about by Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. O’Connor, who is not exactly a conservative, “effectively rebutted President Obama’s warning that a ruling against Obamacare would be ‘judicial activism.'” (Washington Examiner)

Recall, President Obama had used the term “judicial activism” “when he described a possible ruling against Obamacare as “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (Washington Examiner)

O’Connor derided such reasoning today, without mentioning the president. “It seemed to me that it was primarily a lack of understanding by many people about the role of the judicial branch [that motivates charges of judicial activism],” O’Connor said today. “I really thought that we needed to enhance the education of young people about how our government works.”

Since federalism is a chimera—it no longer exists in any meaningful way—the level of decision-making is immaterial to me. In this context, what matters is the decision to strike down ObamaCare. Who cares which branch of the hydra-headed monster makes it, so long as it is made, and, once made, it holds.

Growing Testy With the Twit

Barack Obama, Constitution, Federalism, Glenn Beck, Healthcare, Law

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is growing testy with Obama, giving the Department of Justice “until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.” Via Glenn Beck’s The Blaze:

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).
“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.
“Ultimately I am 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.”
He continued:
And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

It is a good day when activist legislation is struck down. The less legislation on the obese books, the better—unless it is legislation to strike down other overreaching, unconstitutional laws of which we have tens of thousands.

Federalism is forever being “discovered” belatedly and opportunistically by the Demopublicans. Since federalism is a chimera—it no longer exists in any meaningful way—the level of decision-making is immaterial to me. In this context, what matters is the decision to strike down ObamaCare. Who cares which branch of the hydra-headed monster makes it, so long as it is made, and, once made, it holds.

The Powers Of Obama’s ‘Politburo of Proctologists’

Barack Obama, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Socialism

Not even the US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli can muster a spirited defense of ObamaCare. Said Verrilli, almost apologetically, on Tuesday before the Supreme Court: “Maybe they were right, maybe they weren’t, but this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it.” [Oh really?]

Our state’s Attorney General Rob McKenna sees this as the most important case of our lifetime on Federal power under the Commerce clause. The Supreme Court was treating it very seriously, as have all the courts so far, in ruling on the individual mandate. The power to order individuals into private contract, says McKenna, is made up. It’s not as if it had been lying around undiscovered.

It’s a shame that McKenna seems to both support and anticipate ‘severability”—an outcome whereby the individual mandate is severed from the rest of the law, which is upheld.

To the fatuous point of the health-care market being unique, and thus requiring special treatment by the state, McKenna counters that uniqueness is not a constitutional principle.

The issue here is not healthcare policy but Federal power, he says, intimating that Obama’s “politburo of proctologists” cannot “create commerce in order to regulate it.” This is a first, claims McKenna.

As was pointed out in “Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured,” the number of uninsured, by choice or not by choice, is grossly exaggerated.

“The key legal thinker in developing the case against the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate” is Facebook Friend Randy Barnett. Randy is “the originator of the activity/inactivity distinction” being used in the arguments against Obamacare.

Here is Randy’s interview on Ezra Klein’s WaPo’s blog.

Especially pertinent, in the Klein interview, is Randy’s distinction between “the government’s power to tax in order to pay for Medicare, which is a single-payer insurance program that [you’ll] get when over 65,” and the same entity’s constitutional authority to compel the individual to “self-insure on the private market before [he’s] 65.”

RB: “There are several answers, but I’ll limit myself to two. First, there’s the text of the Constitution itself. The text of the Constitution itself gives Congress the power to levy taxes on people and on income. We can’t dispute that. It does not give Congress the power under its commerce power, at least not expressly, to make them do business with private companies.
The second point I would make is that the duty to pay taxes is part of your duty to support the government in return for the protections the government gives you. What the government is claiming here is this power — and this ought to disturb people on the left — to make people do business with private companies when Congress thinks it’s convenient.”

It’s safe to say that even libertarians like Randy who might uphold the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses as constitutional, have to agree that Thomas Jefferson would probably be appalled with it all.

UPDATED: BHO’s Tactical Slip Of The Tongue

Barack Obama, Elections, Ethics, Etiquette, Foreign Policy, Russia

Mitt Romney, and everyone Republican, “seized on Obama’s comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in which Obama suggested greater ‘flexibility’ on negotiations regarding missile defense after the election.”

Romney launched into a scary cold-war diatribe against Russia, to which Russian President Dmitry Medvedev retorted with reference to reason and history (no wonder the Fox News report refrained from quoting Medvedev’s one-two punch):

Medvedev advised the White House hopefuls, including Romney, to “rely on reason, use their heads,” adding, “that’s not harmful for a presidential candidate.” He further said, “It’s 2012, not the mid-1970s, and whatever party he belongs to, he must take the existing realities into account.”

[ABC]

Obama is right to suggest that the US should reconsider its policy of “getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face.”

Where Obama went wrong is in carelessly revealing the Knavish connivance he shares with just about every politicians.

Republican hysteria notwithstanding, Obama’s slip of the tongue was a tactical error, no more.

UPDATE: Nicki, many would say there’s a critical-mass of evidence that the US government and its various democratic proxies do indeed meddle on the level you suggest. See “The Adventures Of America’s Alinskyites in Egypt.”