• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I wonder where that wrong thought comes from. There is a book called Makers (that would be those on my side of the issue) and Takers (that would be people on your side of the issue) that shows this is clearly wrong. No skin off my nose. But is is a very weak retort on your part.

The elite of the dem party are well educated and they think that entitles them to rule everyone else. The dem party has several components. You have the masses who are like children-they want parents to take care of them and make tough decisions for them. The people who pretend to be the parents because they want that power are the leaders. Then you have a third group-the rebellious teenagers. They whine about authority because they pretend they know all there is to know. They are the ones who often bash the rich and think those who are successful cheated to get there.

This board has only a few of the children and almost none of the would be parents. But we have lots of the teenagers or college kids who pretend to be independent but are not
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

What's astounding is that the people who keep smugly insisting that Congress has unlimited to power to regulate commerce, because they want this law to stand really, really badly, have no idea what they're actually arguing for.

If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.

I proposed a hypothetical before -- by this notion, Congress could require you to keep your house painted in neutral colors, decluttered and depersonalized. Why? Because the experts say that's what it takes to sell a house. Oh, wait; you don't want to sell your house? Congress can require that you do. Or buy one even if you don't want to. Why? Haven't you noticed the housing market crisis out there?

There's no end to it, but hey, that's just fine as long as Obama's #1 "accomplishment" is upheld. That's the most important thing, after all.

I have yet to hear a rational argument supporting the utter excrement of wickard v. filburn. Its one of the most harmful and disgusting decisions in supreme court history. Its long term impact was far worse than the dred scott decision
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I have yet to hear a rational argument supporting the utter excrement of wickard v. filburn. Its one of the most harmful and disgusting decisions in supreme court history. Its long term impact was far worse than the dred scott decision

No arguments.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I've never denied that affirmative action may have played a role in his admission to Columbia and Harvard. But it had nothing to do with his success AT Harvard.

Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?

He said that affirmative action helped him.

He is quoted here.

Articles: Early Obama Letter Confirms Inability to Write

and here

Obama’s 1990 note to the Harvard Law Record ” as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career” « thesophic
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

an interesting comment given the group most likely to vote for liberal politicians have the lowest average scores on standardized IQ tests

They've pretty much acknowledged that by confirming that their supporters don't know how to apply for voter ID.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Could you please provide this comprehensive list of top constitutional scholars? I don't deny all three, one of which in regards to Tribe is regarded as one of the top "liberal" constitutional experts and was a consultant for Obama's Justice Administration, are well respected opinions. That said, you've chosen at least two, if not three, Constitutional Scholars who are known to historically lean, with regards to the constitution, in a similar way that Ginsberg and Breyer lean. What you're essentially attempting to do is handpick the experts of your choosing to attempt to validate only one view point of constitutional philosophy as being valid.

Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law stated before the Judiciary committee that "the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity". I find it interesting you immedietely discount Rivkin and Casey because they represent the plantiff, but have no issue quoting a person whose been on the payroll of the Obama Administration as a fair and objective individual. One of the people in your own links, James Blumstein, even suggest that the notion of its constitutionality only exists "given the expansion of federal power since 1937", which inherently suggests that it's simply due to precedent rather than any inherent constitutional notion that it should not be overturned. However, throughout America's history there's been examples, some lauded by Liberals (and some by both sides), where the Courts disregarded precedent for their own interpritation of the Constitution and those acts are not viewed as unconstitutional or judicial activism or "wrong".

You further discount the fact that while those you've named are legal experts, they are no more legal experts than those sitting on the Supreme Court and they are no more or less impartial because they're professors rather than judges. Furthermore, it puts all your stock in judging the constitutionality of this on legal experts, specifically in your case legal experts with a noted lean in terms of their style of constitutional interpritation, while ignoring that there are a plethora of legal experts throughout the country who have taken up the mantle of Judges rather than deciding to enter into acadamia. A group, by and large, that remains silent on such a thing. The notion that one can accuratley and fairly designate what the majority of legal expert or scholar's believes is a misguided one based on this notion. Perhaps a judgement can be made regarding the majority of legal professors, but those are hardly the only experts on the issue in this country.

Finally, I'll point out your baseline fallacy with appealing to authority. Not only are you proclaiming you're correct because some experts, hand picked by you and deemed the "top" in the country by you, happen to agree but you do so by discounting the experts sitting on the court that disagree with you, the experts making the arguments that are disagreeing with you, and other experts that have spoken out that disagree not to mention those that can't or choose not to speak out. So your argument that you're correct is generally based on a foundation of nothing but your own hand selected experts as some kind of unquestionable truth. It is not.

Why do you argue with a known hack?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.

Quire right, and they will always use 'the public interest' in order too tell you should live your life. There are few who feel they don't have the answer as to how other people should live their lives and this is particularly true with politicians, and in fact most people in government.

If they feel that solar power is the answer there no doubt at all that they will force people to buy solar panels for their homes, at the company of their choosing, and with the risk of heavy fines or jail time if they don't. The opportunities for politicians and their friends to use this to their advantage is enormous, and the lines between the government and crony capitalism has already been well established.

If the court agrees with the BHO administration then the doors are open wide.

And even if the Democrats feel this is a good thing at the moment can they not realize that Republicans can take the same opportunities and pass laws forcing the public to buy their products later? It can be energy saving products, health foods, safety devices, anything they might think of, and force everyone, always in the public interest, to buy it. That's what this is really all about.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I cannot help but to wonder if this does not backfire on the President.

Any Justice that rules in favor of Obamacare will be accused of being the President's lackey. Will a Justice that is on the fence lean away from the President so as to make it clear that they are not being partial? The ones that are set one way or the other will not change, but the undecided one may well be influenced.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

do you think it is a sign of a responsible court to

1) follow crappy precedent that completely distorted the obvious meaning of the Commerce Clause

2) give congress unlimited power to make individuals do whatever congress decrees?

1) I think that it would be irresponsible to overturn 75 years of precedent that was instrumental in the creation of the social safety net, desegration, and a host of other important policies, yes;

2) In ratifying the mandate the Court wouldn't be giving Congress any power that it doesn't already have.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

What's astounding is that the people who keep smugly insisting that Congress has unlimited to power to regulate commerce, because they want this law to stand really, really badly, have no idea what they're actually arguing for.

If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.

I proposed a hypothetical before -- by this notion, Congress could require you to keep your house painted in neutral colors, decluttered and depersonalized. Why? Because the experts say that's what it takes to sell a house. Oh, wait; you don't want to sell your house? Congress can require that you do. Or buy one even if you don't want to. Why? Haven't you noticed the housing market crisis out there?

There's no end to it, but hey, that's just fine as long as Obama's #1 "accomplishment" is upheld. That's the most important thing, after all.

That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home). That would be far more akin to Lopez, where the purely local conduct was regulated on the theory that it had a significant impact on interstate commerce, which the Court noted is quite different from directly regulating interstate commerce.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?

He said that affirmative action helped him.

Uh, no, as I said before, I don't dispute that affirmative action may have played a role in his admission to Columbia and Harvard. But it did not play a role in his performance at Harvard.

What Obama wrote was that he was, "someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when [he] was selected to join the Review last year…"

Presumably what he meant is that he wrote onto the law review, as opposed to being selected on the basis of his first year grades. Apparently the selection process was changed to half grade-on and half write-on in recognition of the fact that minorities might be at a disadvantage in a purely grade-on process. However, there is no affirmative action within the writing competition, which is completely anonymous. Likewise affirmative action had nothing to do with the fact that he graduated at the top of his class while working 50+ hours/wk at the law review.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Why do you argue with a known hack?

Why would he be interested in what a known hack has to say about it?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home). That would be far more akin to Lopez, where the purely local conduct was regulated on the theory that it had a significant impact on interstate commerce, which the Court noted is quite different from directly regulating interstate commerce.

So, what if Congress mandated that solar power shall be installed in every home. The ompanies that manufacture the solar panels are interstate commerce, so it is not the house that is regulated and mandated, it is the purchase of the panels...

Would that be within the scope of commerce clause in your opinion? Green energy is for the common good and general welfare, after all .......
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home).

Oh, I'm sure I can think of something, let's see, off the top of my head . . . growing a crop for your own personal consumption.

:lamo

You're saying that the home financing market doesn't cross state lines? Really?

You're saying home construction doesn't cross state lines? Really?

You're saying no one ever buys a home in a different state? Really?

And you're saying that the housing market in all its permeations doesn't "substantially affect interstate commerce" in the sense contemplated by Wickard? Really?

Whew.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

1) I think that it would be irresponsible to overturn 75 years of precedent that was instrumental in the creation of the social safety net, desegration, and a host of other important policies, yes;

So you want liberal policies to stand, no matter if they REALLY pass Constitutional muster or not?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So, what if Congress mandated that solar power shall be installed in every home. The ompanies that manufacture the solar panels are interstate commerce, so it is not the house that is regulated and mandated, it is the purchase of the panels...

Would that be within the scope of commerce clause in your opinion? Green energy is for the common good and general welfare, after all .......

I think it's possible that Congress could do that but it's hard to say because you haven't posited ANY rational basis for the regulation.

Of course we know that solar panel "mandates" have already been created under the tax code, in the form of tax credits. In the same way we are already "mandated" to purchase home mortgages, and "mandated" to buy hybrid vehicles, and "mandated" to give to charity.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Oh, I'm sure I can think of something, let's see, off the top of my head . . . growing a crop for your own personal consumption.

:lamo

Nice try, but a whiff. The law in Wickard regulated the sale of wheat generally. Wheat tends to be just a wee bit more mobile than a house.

You're saying that the home financing market doesn't cross state lines? Really?

Are you under the impression that Congress doesn't already regualte the home financing market? :2rofll:

You're saying home construction doesn't cross state lines? Really?

You're saying no one ever buys a home in a different state? Really?
Buying a home

And you're saying that the housing market in all its permeations doesn't "substantially affect interstate commerce" in the sense contemplated by Wickard? Really?

Whew.

Whew indeed. Apparently you simply can't grasp the difference between direct regulation of intERstate commerce (not home purchases), which Congress has virtually limitless power to regulate, and intRAstate commerce that may have a substantial effect on intERstate commerce, which is more circumscribed, per Lopez.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

:lamo

Nice try, but a whiff. The law in Wickard regulated the sale of wheat generally. Wheat tends to be just a wee bit more mobile than a house.

Weaseling yet again. You didn't didn't say anything about the law. It was about things which might affect interstate commerce less than the purchase of a home. Doesn't matter if wheat is "mobile" if it isn't ever going to go anywhere.

And what's more "mobile" than money?


Are you under the impression that Congress doesn't already regualte the home financing market? :2rofll:

Yet another weasel.

Tell me, if purchasing a home doesn't affect interstate commerce at all (your claim, as you said you can't think of anything which affects it less), then why would Congress have power to regulate its financing?

Do people generally pay cash for homes? No? Hmmmm. Do billions of dollars per year cross state lanes to finance the purchase of homes? Yes? Hmmmmm.

I guess a home purchase DOES substantially affect interstate commerce after all. Imagine that. Oh, wait; you already said you were incapable of it.


Whew indeed. Apparently you simply can't grasp the difference between direct regulation of interstate commerce (not home purchases), which Congress has virtually limitless power to regulate, and INTRASTATE commerce that may have a substantial effect on inTERstate commerce, which is more circumscribed, per Lopez.

What I grasp is that you were caught with your pants down on home buying, and are trying desperately, yet unsuccessfully, to save face. I suspect I'm not the only one reading who grasps it as well.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Uh, no, as I said before, I don't dispute that affirmative action may have played a role in his admission to Columbia and Harvard. But it did not play a role in his performance at Harvard.

What Obama wrote was that he was, "someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when [he] was selected to join the Review last year…"

So you disagree with Obama that he MAY have benefited? This despite the article by the NY Times outlining how he benefited? What makes you think you know better than BHO himself or the HLR board?

Presumably what he meant is that he wrote onto the law review, as opposed to being selected on the basis of his first year grades.

"Presumably" what he meant? Why does Chance the Gardener, this greatest orator, this most articulate president ever, need interpreters to redefine what he really meant to say. That's what's going on repeatedly with his ridiculous public musings on law, on precedent, on the SCOTUS, and on the role of Congress.

Apparently the selection process was changed to half grade-on and half write-on in recognition of the fact that minorities might be at a disadvantage in a purely grade-on process.

Yes, they set aside his grades. That much is obvious.
However, there is no affirmative action within the writing competition, which is completely anonymous.

His writing is awful. Did you not see that?
Likewise affirmative action had nothing to do with the fact that he graduated at the top of his class while working 50+ hours/wk at the law review.

He graduated at the top of his class? That is not even close to the truth. If you have the evidence that this guy graduated at the top, what his grades were, or even that he worked 50+ hours a week at the HLR, then lets see it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/quotes
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I think it's possible that Congress could do that but it's hard to say because you haven't posited ANY rational basis for the regulation.

Of course we know that solar panel "mandates" have already been created under the tax code, in the form of tax credits. In the same way we are already "mandated" to purchase home mortgages, and "mandated" to buy hybrid vehicles, and "mandated" to give to charity.

I think you are confusing and incentive with a mandate. The mandatory requirement that all new vehicles have automatic tire pressure sensors is a mandate. getting a tax break to owning a hybrid vehicle is an incentive.

Those examples you gave, are only incentives. You still have a choice on whether or not you want to own a hybrid vehicle. I have solar power at my house. That was my choice. I do not, however, have a hybrid vehicle. Again...my choice.

A mandate, a requirement, to purchase any product or service is way beyond the scope of the constitutional clause of regulation of interstate commerce.
Regulating whether or not something can or cannot be sold across state lines is well within the scope of that clause.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So you disagree with Obama that he MAY have benefited? This despite the article by the NY Times outlining how he benefited? What makes you think you know better than BHO himself or the HLR board?

I already explained this. You don't seem to understand the selection process.

"Presumably" what he meant? Why does Chance the Gardener, this greatest orator, this most articulate president ever, need interpreters to redefine what he really meant to say. That's what's going on repeatedly with his ridiculous public musings on law, on precedent, on the SCOTUS, and on the role of Congress.

Hmm, I believe the quote you're referring to was pulled from a letter he wrote while in law school? How dare he not anticipate your obsession with his academic record 20 years in the future! :lol:

Yes, they set aside his grades. That much is obvious.

No, they didn't "set aside" his grades. Half the people on the law review are chosen on the basis of grades and the other half are chosen on the basis of a writing competition.

His writing is awful. Did you not see that?

WTF are you talking about?

He graduated at the top of his class? That is not even close to the truth. If you have the evidence that this guy graduated at the top, what his grades were, or even that he worked 50+ hours a week at the HLR, then lets see it.

It is absolutely the truth. Did you go to college? Do you know what it means to graduate magna cum laude? Hint: it means that you graduated at the top of your class. In the case of Harvard Law, at the time Obama was there, it meant that you were in the top 13% or better.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Weaseling yet again. You didn't didn't say anything about the law. It was about things which might affect interstate commerce less than the purchase of a home. Doesn't matter if wheat is "mobile" if it isn't ever going to go anywhere.

And what's more "mobile" than money?




Yet another weasel.

Tell me, if purchasing a home doesn't affect interstate commerce at all (your claim, as you said you can't think of anything which affects it less), then why would Congress have power to regulate its financing?

Do people generally pay cash for homes? No? Hmmmm. Do billions of dollars per year cross state lanes to finance the purchase of homes? Yes? Hmmmmm.

I guess a home purchase DOES substantially affect interstate commerce after all. Imagine that. Oh, wait; you already said you were incapable of it.




What I grasp is that you were caught with your pants down on home buying, and are trying desperately, yet unsuccessfully, to save face. I suspect I'm not the only one reading who grasps it as well.

Come back when you figure out the difference between direct and indirect regulation of commerce. Until you get that distinction I just don't see the point in trying to discuss this with you.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Can you point me to the places in the Constitution where it distinguishes between activity and inactivity?



:lol:


com·merce/ˈkämərs/
Noun:

The activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.



Not buying something, is not..... **Commerce** the FEDGOV has no right to FORCE you into the activity of commerce, through the levy of fines and penalties.. Please show me some examples where they do. Thanks.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I can point you to the part where it says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. That's the part.



You do realize its to regulate trade amongst the several states, not to dictate to the citizen the requirment to purchase a product or service.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yeah, most experts would be liberal. It's an IQ thing.


Given your display of ignorance on the constitution, the Commerce clause, et al. I suspect your position here is less than accurate. :prof
 
Back
Top Bottom