Posts
Constitutional scholar, Barack Hussein Obama, is confident the Supreme Court will not take an unprecedented position of doing their job on ruling whether or not his socialistic Obamacare is Constitutional. After all, they aren't elected officials--they're more like czars, who have more power than most elected officials, and there is no justification for them to be in power--wait, never mind, they already are and were appointed by President Obama.
The President seems to have judicial activism confused with judicial restraint, when it comes to the Supreme Court if they strike down a law designed by a sitting President. Of course, in Mr. Obama's case, he is not actually a sitting President, he's more like a putting POTUS, spending more time on the links than many professional golfers, and ending up with a score similar to the federal deficit. But he is a Constitutional scholar, and he must know more than the Founding Fathers what is or is not Constitutional.
Referring to Supreme Court justices as "unelected" is insulting to what the Founding Fathers intended when they designed the checks and balances of the government. By ensuring that they would not be elected but appointed by the President, and hold their appointments for life, there would be limited political influence in their findings and be better able of determining the Constitutionality of a bill in spite of who authored it--even a Constitutional scholar like Obama.
One thing I know is that a President who walks all over the US Constitution like Obama does, should have his unconstitutional bill defeated by the very justices he minimizes, insults and apparently fears.
Tweet
The President seems to have judicial activism confused with judicial restraint, when it comes to the Supreme Court if they strike down a law designed by a sitting President. Of course, in Mr. Obama's case, he is not actually a sitting President, he's more like a putting POTUS, spending more time on the links than many professional golfers, and ending up with a score similar to the federal deficit. But he is a Constitutional scholar, and he must know more than the Founding Fathers what is or is not Constitutional.Referring to Supreme Court justices as "unelected" is insulting to what the Founding Fathers intended when they designed the checks and balances of the government. By ensuring that they would not be elected but appointed by the President, and hold their appointments for life, there would be limited political influence in their findings and be better able of determining the Constitutionality of a bill in spite of who authored it--even a Constitutional scholar like Obama.
One thing I know is that a President who walks all over the US Constitution like Obama does, should have his unconstitutional bill defeated by the very justices he minimizes, insults and apparently fears.
If you want a great read about modern
day terrorism and suspense, my latest novel, Jihad Joe, is now available both in soft cover and as an Ebook--see
the links below.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment