Posts Tagged Federalist
I was unable to post anything last night, so I am slightly behind on this one . . . my apologies. However, it has to be dealt with. Yesterday, in case you haven’t heard about it, yet, Obama basically threatened the U.S. Supreme Court. He is blatantly trying to bully them into upholding his unconstitutional health care atrocity. You can read the story here, or watch a short clip below.
This is so unbelievably wrong, unpresidential, un-American, and so vilely classless, I can’t even stand it. This guy has to be stopped. Excuse me while I comment. While he claims that a Supreme Court ruling his socialized medicine bill as unconstitutional would equate judicial activism is twisted. Pretty much everything that pours out of his mouth is twisted . . . Obama, (Lord, please let him come across this) contrary to your backwards world, what is “unprecedented and extraordinary” is not a Supreme Court striking down an unconstitutional atrocity. What IS “unprecedented and extraordinary” is your obvious power grab. It is your attempt at subverting Congress, ramming this piece of crap down America’s throat, cutting backroom deals to ensure it gets passed, having it barely pass and claim it was a “strong majority”, your complete disregard for American law (the Constitution) and the American people is what is so grotesquely “unprecedented and extraordinary.” Your sick love affair with socialists, radicals, and commies is “unprecedented and extraordinary.” Your willingness, and ease, at completely lying about virtually everything to the American people is “unprecedented and extraordinary.” Racking up $6 trillion of debt in 3 years and still blaming your predecessor without a single ounce of responsibility is “unprecedented and extraordinary.” The oath you took to uphold and defend the Constitution was a blatant lie . . . well, I don’t know that that is “unprecedented” but it is certainly “extraordinary.” YOU are “unprecedented and extraordinary” (for someone with your title), and not in a good way.
Let me remind everyone about the Supreme Court. It was set up, along with our Executive and Legislative branches, as one of the 3 independent branches of our republic. It was set up to be completely separate, with the least amount of power, so that it could concentrate on accurately interpreting the Constitution, without bias or influence from the other two branches. If they strike down Obamacare – and they definitely should – they are simply doing they’re job! That is not judicial activism!! What IS activism is unlawfully using a given position to push some political agenda, like the lefties do, usually. Please, everyone, read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (which are the arguments for the Constitution). For your enjoyment, I offer a fairly long chunk of Federalist # 78, penned by Alexander Hamilton. (If you don’t want to read the whole thing, at least go to the bottom and read the bold lines.) I know this Federalist deals specifically with the judiciary, however, how can they stay independent and impartial to make a constitutional ruling when an out of control wanna-be-dictator is bullying them like a school-yard punk? It’s impossible.
Following this excerpt, the full Obama press conference is posted for any of you who are interested.
From Federalist #78, we read:
The simple view of the matter suggest several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power, that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter, I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. For I agree that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its coordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarly be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the grounds on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
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.
Now, if you’re interested, here is the entire press conference from yesterday: