President Obama is no "constitutional scholar"
By J.J. Jackson
One of the biggest fabrications I regularly hear about our President is that he is a "Constitutional Scholar". Yet time and time again the President repeatedly shows he knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution. Some people suspect that he really does know the Constitution but that he actively chooses to ignore what he knows because his knowledge, if put into practice, destroys the ability for his liberal agenda to be moved forward. I completely disagree. The man is clearly a "Constitutional Dullard".
This past week the President ran out to prove his ignorance of the document so many claim he understands so well. The President stood before anyone who would listen and spewed his ignorance while decrying the looming potential for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. He bloviated about how it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to throw out a law. Might I add boldly, a law with no Constitutional backing Mr. President?
President Obama ran about like a headless chicken imploring Americans to believe that the Supreme Court must show "deference" to Obamacare and concocting all sorts of superficial, non-legal and even non-Constitutional reasons for this. All of these reasons however amount to nothing more than saying because the law now exists, it should therefore be allowed to continue to exist. Wow. By that standard slavery should still be legal and segregation should still be legal. See what I mean about the President being a "dullard"?
Now the President was not the only liberal having conniptions. Liberal pundits who, are equally unaware of what our Constitution actually says, and even less aware of what it means, have been lamenting along side of him. They have said all sorts of crazy things. They have mused how if the Supreme Court were to vote five to four to overturn the Obamacare that such a decision should be ignored as meaningless, because, well, the vote is so close and not decisive enough. Some of the most insane on the left have even proposed that any judge who dares vote to kill the horrendous law should be impeached. Of course, these same liberals never, ever, say such things about the Court when a five to four decision mistakenly goes in their favor because enough partisan liberal justices join with waffling moderate justices on the Court and actually vote to uphold clearly unconstitutional acts by Congress.
It is important that all Americans, lest they be duped into believing that the far left-wing of American politics actually knows their posteriors from the proverbial hole in the ground, be reminded of the facts of the matter. Especially in light of the fact that liberals are trying very hard to convince the unwashed masses that the Supreme Court should be subservient to Congress and the President despite clearly being a constructed as co-equal branch of government with checks and balances to wield against them.
Liberals are going to hate me for this, but I am going to do it anyway. Yes, I am going to back up that statement with facts.
First of all, we will turn to the Constitution itself. Specifically, we will look at Article III. Section 1 states: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court". This gives precedent for the Supreme Court to have judicial power. Ok, moving on. In Section 2, we have this statement: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;". Note the extremely important wording granting the Court authority to hear and rule on cases "in Law" and "arising under this Constitution." Why is this important? It is important because of Article VI which makes the Constitution itself "law". Paragraph two says clearly that "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
Therefore, clearly, except to those spinning themselves sick, the United States Supreme Court has the right to rule on any act undertaken by another branch of the federal government as to whether or not their actions are granted or denied by the "supreme Law of the Land." It is often said that only Congress can make law. This is true, at least with regards to new laws. But what is omitted is that there is a law, i.e. the Constitution, which existed prior to Congress and which governs them.
Now, I know that it is often, and quite mistakenly, stated that it was Marbury v. Madison that gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over the laws of Congress. In fact, I hear a lot of miseducated people who consider themselves conservatives stating this as well as many on the left. However if they would just read the Constitution, and the passages I have just presented they will clearly see that this is completely false. The power of judicial review existed from the ratification of the Constitution. The founding fathers and all of the States agreed to it. What Marbury v. Madison did was only affirm it after years of people who did not want to abide by the Constitution claiming that judicial review did not already exist. Call them the liberals of their day.
Still not convinced? Think that the wording of the Constitution is ambiguous and not all that clear? Well, there is more proof that it says exactly what I say it says. Oh, I know you liberals hate facts, but here are some more.
We have an actual discussion of the concept of judicial review in the Federalist Papers. You remember the Federalist Papers right? The documents written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton designed to explain the already simple language of the proposed Constitution to people who, even back then, could not be bothered to actually read the document? In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton explained the concept of judicial review for anyone unable to understand it as written in the Constitution in such plain language. Several passages are important and I present them now here to make liberals go nuts.
" ... the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority." – Alexander Hamilton
And why? Well, Hamilton tells us why! "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Egad! Legislative review explained once again! But wait, there are even more nails in the coffin of blithering idiots who think that the Supreme Court does not have the power to handcuff Congress and toss their laws or at least did not before the evil Marbury v. Madison. Said Alexander Hamilton, "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
This Federalist Paper is also important with regards to liberals who think that judges who toss an unconstitutional law should be impeached. Hamilton explains what impeachment is to be used for. Two paragraphs cover this:
"According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State."
So, you see, it is judges who act in bad behavior and act contrary to the Constitution who should be impeached, not those that rule in favor of it and keeping Congress within its bounds. In fact, any justice that does not vote to toss Obamacare is, by definition, acting in bad behavior and they should be the ones that are impeached.
But this is all meaningless, to liberals anyway. They do not care on lick what the facts are. They only care about their power. And as such is their only goal, they will keep lying about the role of the Supreme Court and trying to persuade as many ignoramuses they can to join their cause. Based on the results of recent elections, there is certainly no shortage of useful idiots willing to make their mark and sign on to the liberal agenda of piracy and raid our rights to secure power for themselves.
Liberals are no "Constitutional Scholars". Least among them; President Obama. Be not fooled by such frivolous claims.
J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com.