Hubris, hypocrisy, delusional self serving rhetorical lunacy: these are the words that come to mind when I think of Barack Obama. And day after day he keeps opening his mouth, inserting his foot, and proving that I am right.
Can you imagine the profound disconnect from constitutional reality that has to occur for the President of the United States to declare that the idea of unelected officials declaring a law unconstitutional is “unprecedented”?
First, let’s acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s constitutional function of judicial review was asserted in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 under Chief Justice John Marshall. Hello, will the real Constitutional scholar occupying the White House please stand up? There is no way this alleged scholar inhabits the body of Barack Hussein Obama.
“Let me remind conservative commentators...” he babbled about conservatives’ objection to judicial activism.
For the benefit of those uninformed individuals who do not know what judicial activism is let us review the concept in its simplest form. Judicial activism is when justices who do not acknowledge that the Constitution was written using words that actually had discernible meaning make law independently from any statute that is actually before them for consideration. They conveniently ignore the historical reality that the Founders in fact clearly articulated their intentions.
Those of us who do not see the Constitution as a lump of clay to be molded to the preconceptions and prejudices of those public servants who occupy the Judicial Branch consider judicial activism to be the process whereby unelected judges MAKE UP CRAP FROM THE BENCH. They are less concerned with what the Legislative Branch pass as law than what those same unelected activist justices believe they should have passed. They appropriate to themselves the legislative function and make “law” from the bench.
I personally believe that the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are we the people. Yes, we have a representative government, and yes, we owe allegiance and a contractual loyalty enjoined to our common interests, and yes, we must exhaust all lawful resources before we resort to Jeffersonian curative prescriptions.
But when a man of dubious origins and questionable legitimacy appoints radical deconstructionists who regard the Constitution as an inconvenient option in their global bag of tricks, we approach a dangerous line. At some point, we the people must take a stand. Always and preferably it should be lawful and peaceful, and thankfully, the Founders established the mechanisms to do so, but Jefferson spoke to our ultimate responsibility for our liberty as did many other Founders.
Judge made laws, as opposed to the interpretive function in which judges must often engage, are dreamed up out of thin air and given the color of law by activist judges who do not know their place. They are oligarchs who believe that both the Legislative Branch and We the People are too dammed stupid to know what’s good for us so they take it upon themselves to be the tyrants that we so desperately need.
Imagine the mangled and twisted mental gymnastics that Obama has to have gone through to say what he did. Because it is impossible that he is that stupid, the only possible explanation must be that he is deliberately misleading the sheeple.
To declare a law unconstitutional is a long established function of the Supreme Court. If a law is unconstitutional, they simply declare the law as unenforceable because it does not pass constitutional muster and they return it to the Legislative Branch where that body of ELECTED officials must deal with it and thereafter answer to their constituents. Under no circumstances does the Supreme Court have the authority to rewrite a law, and most assuredly they do not have the authority to author one, and as far as I’m concerned, when they do, it lacks authority.
For the love of God, November can’t come fast enough. The government is intrusive enough without a Marxist fruitcake articulating utter nonsense on the public airwaves to the world at large.