As a former student of law, it sure blows mine.
What, you ask?
President Obama’s claim that if the United States Supreme Court judicially strikes down Obamacare, this would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”
Since 1803, the United States Supreme Court’s main job is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Oh, but this case would be unprecedented and extraordinary. /please read italicized words in the most sarcastic manner possible/
This is what happens when we keep ceding public opinion to the so-called experts.
How about a second opinion? How about another expert’s opinion?
Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Hoo, boy, that just happened.
If the typical uninformed voter doesn’t understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional, we can understand why. The Constitution has been creatively interpreted to accommodate federal programs for a very long time, after all.
But that’s what makes the President’s statements so shameful. As a former student of law, he should know better than to stretch beyond the bounds of judicial interpretation.
If he does know better, then he is not upholding the document he swore to uphold. Do you know what that means? “Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.”