"If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law, it should be upheld without a problem," Obama said in Minnesota during a town hall discussion. "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens." Obama recently on the constitutionally of the Obamacare law. What an interesting statement If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law ? Ah, but the Supreme Court is not supposed to follow existing precedent, (and) existing law if that precedent clearly goes against the Constitution. After all the Supreme Court Justices all swear the following. "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_3.htm Justices swear to rule under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Of course a heavily Democrat Congress changed the Oath-of-Office for Supreme Court Justices in 1990. The oath is a matter of federal law. Violating that oath is a crime, and an impeachable offense. Of course Democrats wanted to water it down so Democrat Progressive Justices would not be impeached for violating the oath, and ruling against the Constitution as they MUST to preserve the Democrat Quiet Coup of 1937. If Democrats could take any mention of ruling "under" the Constitution out of the oath they would in a heartbeat. Before Democrats changed the oath, Supreme Court Justices had to swear the following. "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." I guess Democrats didnt like the phrase that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. Instead they watered down the requirement that justices must actually follow the Constitution, and replaced the phrase with a simple I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Obama wants the Supreme Court to follow existing precedent, (and) existing law made after FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his New Deal unconstitutional. Google the Switch in Time that Saved Nine. All the Democrat wealth distribution and social engineering schemes were built on illegal precedent after FDR threatened the Supreme Court, and they backed done allowing violations of the Constitution. Ah, but even today the court must rule under the Constitution and laws of the United States and yes those laws MUST adhere to the Constitution, or must in fact be Constitutional. There has never been a federal law FORCING anyone to buy a personal product for ones personal benefit, ever in the history of the country. What laws are Obama talking about, Democrat violations of the Constitution? What existing precedent(s) is Obama talking about, ones made AFTER FDR bullied the Supreme Court into allowing Democrat violations of the Constitution? If the Constitution is to be followed Obamacare has no chance.
Didn't Obama study constitution law or whatever? You would think he would know more about the constitution in regards to Obama care.
He was a lecturer on the subject. Though some would say that he was a professor. But, they would be wrong.
Obama studied Constitutional Law like a car thief would study car alarms. He practically admitted as much in a 2001 radio interview. Obama admitted. The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and that the Constitution does not say what the government must do on someones behalf. Well of course the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth because there is no Constitutional justification, power or legitimate authority to take the wealth of one and give it to another in an effort to equal" out results. That is the Socialism/Communism model. Yet that is exactly what Obama seeks to do in violation of the Constitution as he well knows. Of course the Constitution does not say (in fact prohibits under the Tenth Amendment) the government doing things for the individual as that would be wealth distribution. If you cant get an affordable mortgage on your own someone else must pay. Third Paragraph (Bold for emphasis) But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states cant do to you, it says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnt shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts
I would take a bet that Obama has never actually sat down and read the document all the way through. There is no doubt in my mind.
This is the part I found fascinating, "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens." Ah, manage it? I wonder what our President who believes the Constitution is a seriously flawed document means? The people on the left won't even try to pass a Constitutional Amendment because they knoew the people don't support them and they don't care.
Ubama looks at the Constitution as something to get around and twist into what he wants it to say. He thinks it is a flawed document. If he did ever study the Constitution it was for the reasons of learning how to circumvent it. He was raised by commies, I expect nothing less from him. He has no respect for the document except things he can pick out to support his agenda and the rest he would like to (*)(*)(*)(*) can.
Obama knows very little about the Constitution. When it was suggested that the 14th Amendment gave him the authority to raise the debt limit without congressional approval he had to ask his lawyers if he could or not. An expert on the Constitution would have already known the answer to that question without having to ask.
"What is Obama talking about"...if he knew he wouldn't be the completely incompetent boob he is now would he. That said, given this, along with his now infamous 57 states and threat to veto any AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION he doesn't agree with....um lets just say, any parent, that had their child taught by this man, when he was allegedly a professor teaching law, particularly Constitutional law, should demand their money back.
Oh and you will note ladies and gents, Obama, nor his liberal cronies can point to a single instance in American law, where Congress was granted the authority by the Constitution, or the States, or the People, to mandate by force and penalty of law, that private citizen A, must buy a product good or service from private citizen B. So much for Obama's "precedent". While lying and simply making things up, in order to create precedent's, might be how these liberals desire for things to work in liberal chutes and ladders. Lying to create and simply make legal precedent up, to suit one's own political viewpoint, doesn't count in a real court, in the real world where FACTS not made up liberal lies are what decides "precedent".
When Obama says he will have to "manage that when it happens" he does not mean drop the then violation of the Constitution (Obamacare). He means he will find another way of implementing his unrestrained power grab. tyr•an•ny   /ˈtɪrəni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee] noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
I want an Obama Supporter, a general Leftist to explain what "then we'll have to manage that when it happens" means...