Whaddaya Mean "Third Branch" Of Government?!?

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm 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," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable." Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.

cross-posted to right-angles on DW

Comments

[acadecalli.livejournal.com]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but judicial review is not explicitly granted to the Supreme Court in the constitution, is it? I thought it was inferred from a couple of clauses and then cemented as precedent with Marbury v. Madison. Regardless, judicial review is part of our legal history. It is certainly not "unprecedented" nor an "extraordinary step." It is a key part of the checks and balances of our government.

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

No, you're right. It's not precisely specifically written out, though it's pretty heavily implied in at least one place ("...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..." to my view, but IANAL). But Marbury v. Madison was in 1803, and since the Constitution was only adopted in 1787, I feel that if judicial review had been extraordinarily out of step with what the Framers had intended, a good few of the Framers themselves would have gotten together to do something about it.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

An amusing side note someone pointed out. If the Supreme Court is supposed to assume constitutionality of a law duly passed by Congress, then why is the DOJ allowed to ignore the DOMA (which was passed by a majority of both parties) because they think it's unconstitutional? Obviously this administration wants to have its cake and eat it too.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

only the conservatives read laws or bills or constitutions.

look at the favorable and unfavorable ratings watch thomas or opencongress or govtrack, and you will see that the ratings are overwhelmingly conservative. sad fact conservatives read liberals are sheep.

[neemarita.livejournal.com]

Checks and balances? lulz, Obama doesn't care about those, silly! *facepalm*

[muses-circle.livejournal.com]

All of this is a media ploy to get the uneducated citizens on Obama's side (and by "uneducated" I mean those people who accept the lamestream media's "news" at face value without any research at all). We all know the media is heavily pro-Obama, so when he proclaims the Supreme Court couldn't possibly declare the individual mandate unconstitutional, the media runs with it. The ignorant masses then get pissed and demand change.

Obama knows what he's doing - and I fear we might see the day when the concept of checks and balances ceases to exist. The dude's already gone after Congress, declaring them useless. We all know he'd much rather run this country alone - and the media's helping him!

[acethepug.livejournal.com]

That terrifies me, actually. And you're right, either he's deliberately misleading the public, counting on their ignorance, or he's the ignorant one.

And I don't know which one is worse -- a President and "Constitutional Scholar" (in quotation marks because he doesn't seem to understand OR respect the Constitutiion) who doesn't grasp what the Supreme Court does, or one who banks on the ignorance of the public when he himself knows he's in the wrong.

I agree, the media is heavily pro-Obama, but can they really not see the threat, here? For all the hand-wringing about Darth Cheney and how awful GW Bush was for things like the Patriot Act (which Obama never repealed, curiously, only added to), do they not grasp a single, simple fact;

A man who lies to others will almost certainly do so to you.

Man, I saw that on things like "The Judge" and "Divorce Court," that someone who lies in part of their testimony can be considered to have done so in ALL their testimony, that it should at least be considered.

Great, the media loves him, do they not grasp the concept that the President will lie to/affect THEM in some bad way in the future? It's not like he isn't displaying a blatant disregard for the law and the Constitution now, what makes them think THEY are safe?

Thanks for posting!

[muses-circle.livejournal.com]

Considering Obama believes the Constitution to be a "document of negative liberties" - what government cannot do on a citizen's behalf - then I'd say he doesn't respect anything about our founding documents, or indeed our Republic. (He keeps calling us a Democracy - Chavez and the nutjob in Iran were voted in because of democratic processes. Just saying.) I agree with you, that Obama is a liar, and he most likely has been lying in most (if not all) of his speeches. All his talk in 2008 about the healthcare bill/law - it won't add to the debt, we can keep our own insurance, doctor, blah blah - are all lies. That's just now coming out, and the media acts so shocked.

/rant

Anyway...

do they not grasp the concept that the President will lie to/affect THEM in some bad way in the future?

They either know and don't care, or honestly don't see it. I believe it to be the former, however; considering the fact that the major networks are somehow connected with the Obama administration *coughs*likeGE*coughs*, I'm guessing journalists are told what to report, or want to keep the important stuff behind a curtain. It's all about keeping the masses "protected" from the horrors of the world, y'know? (It's like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451....)