Obama and the Supreme Court and His Oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”
APRIL 5, 2012 1:00 AM
The depth of President Obama’s betrayal of his sworn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” is still being chewed over by those who heard him utter the following words on television:
Ultimately, I am 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 democraticallyelected Congress.And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
Journolists in the Liberal media are trying to explain Obama’s statements as a “gaffe” or an “oversight” but they were neither of these… they were a clear attempt at street thug-level intimidation.
Obama’s spokesperson, James Carney, tried to do damage control:
He certainly was not contending—that the Supreme Court doesn’t have as its right and responsibility the ability to overturn laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.He was referring to 85 years of judicial precedent, of Supreme Court precedent, with regard to matters like the one under consideration. And it’s maybe fun to pretend he meant otherwise, but everyone here knows that that’s what he meant.”
That’s crap and Carney knows it. One does not use the words “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” and “unelected” just for sport.
And in a very rare move, Fifth Circuit Court Judge Smith asked the Justice Department:
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? I want to be sure that you are 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.
This is that serious folks.
In the past, Obama has called himself “a constitutional law professor” and he taught courses on the United States Constitution at the University of Chicago.
Here’s what he said in 2007 at a fundraiser:
I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president[George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution.
Technically, Obama was a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago, not a professor there, but this is a minor point not germaine to this discussion.
So one must presume Obama understands the Constituion, the concept of “Checks and Balances,” and the meaning of Judicial Review as well.
Furthermore, Obama was not speaking off-the-cuff at a dinner party and joking around with his tablemates. This was an official speech.
He knew what he was doing.
And what he was doing was a classic tactic of the Left.
Had the former occupant of the Oval Office made such remarks regarding any topic the result would have been explosive. All of the journolists would have gone insane. Plagarizer Maureen Dowd would have written a scathing column making fun of Bush. Katie Couric would have discussed the Supreme Court on her program, Wolf Blizter would have done an in-depth story as to how much of an idiot George W. Bush was, and Newsweek would have selected a photo of the U.S. Constitution burning with Bush behind it.
But, because the Left doesn’t want to see Obamakare (and the promise of a more powerful Government) overturned there is nary a word being said.
Except for George Washington, every United States president has belonged to a member of a political party but placing their politics, party, and re-election fate over the Constitution has been verboten.
There are plenty of lawless savages in the land who work every day to undermine the Constitutional, law-oriented nature of our society in the hopes of replacing it with some home-brewed idea of a Utopian society. These barbarians are constantly testing the fences, poking and prodding looking for weaknesses or a way in and having the nation’s highest elected official suggest that a branch of our Government is not within its Right to do its job is treasonous.
This nation does not need to go through the type of social upheaval such as what happened in the 1960s when people such as John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated by people who disagreed with them.
President Obama’s words against the Supreme Court are not, by themselves, calamitous though they could easily lead down that path.
Such a man does not appear to respect the institutions of Government and a hasty departure after November 5th is in order.
Bee's Note:
Thought this video would be a nice "finish" to the article:
