This guy has accomplished something I didn’t think I would ever see in my lifetime: He’s proven himself to be a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was. And in a scant 19 months in office, no less. Bubba, you’re a rank amateur compared to President Kick#ss. Details:
In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax — even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.
Well, it’s not as if Sir Golfsalot tried doing the Clinton Shuffle on the meaning of the word “tax” or anything. Actually, it’s a lot like that:
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
So the DOJ is trying to argue that the individual mandate in the Senate law is a tax, though the Senate law says it’s not a tax but is instead interstate commerce (and thus within the feds’ jurisdiction)? Granted, it IS a tax and forcing citizens to purchase a product in order to legally exist in this country is unconstitutional, as is the fact that if this IS a tax, then the law originated in the Senate, which violates the constitutional stipulation that all tax bills originate in the House. Either way, this is an amazing predicament in which B.O. finds himself: either he lied, or his AG is an incompetent and illiterate boob. Or both.
Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.
For those of you who were supremely stupid enough to believe Hopenchange when he said he would lower your taxes, I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to see. Sweetheart deal you’ll get. Pinkie-swear.
When you’ve already got your mind made up about something, you don’t let trivial things like facts and the Constitution get in the way, do you? Details:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.
Now that is an awesome prosecutorial approach! “Your honor, I have no bleeping idea what’s in this law, but Keith Olbermann says it sucks, so here we are.” Continuing:
“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.
“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
Holder’s response to “what part of the AZ law violates the Constitution?” seems to be “Who cares? I don’t like it!” The chief law enforcement officer, friends. We’re in great hands.
Apparently, the administration didn’t learn diddly after the Cambridge police – Professor Gates incident, whereby Barry O made a fool of himself by criticizing the police (“They acted stupidly”) before getting all of the information. Open mouth, insert foot, repeat as necessary.
If you ever needed proof that the left is incapable of governing, look no more. The same dolt who droned on about a woman being forced to wear her dead sister’s dentures because there’s no ObamaCare (despite the fact that ObamaCare won’t cover dental) is now wiping her wrinkled moonbat backside with the Constitution. Details:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said. . . .
House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
“We’re well beyond that,” Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.
In other words, Slaughter and Pelosi maintain, the House can pass the Senate bill without having to vote on the Senate bill! That way, the Stupak block won’t be on record as having voted for a pro-abortion Senate bill.
So what does the Constitution say about this? Article 1, Section 7 (emphasis mine):
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
That’s how a bill becomes law. Both Houses must have a majority vote of Yes or No on a bill. Not on a rule, but on a bill.
In other words, this is illegal. While the Supreme Court is loathe to step in when it comes to House and Senate rules, they are more than eager to step in when those rules clearly violate the Constitution. Notes Leon at Redstate:
This mechanism, of course, is referred to in Constitutional and legal shorthand as “bicameralism plus presentment,” which stands for the basic premise, stated above, that before a bill can become law, that bill must be passed by BOTH chambers of Congress and be presented to the President for either his veto or his approval.
…Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all  Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.
And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact. They already know the American people don’t want this bill. They know by now that what they’re trying to do is illegal. The question now is whether they still have the shame to care about either.
Exit question #1: Doesn’t this blueprint show that Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House? If she did, such an illegal move wouldn’t even be contemplated.
Exit question #2: Does the question now go from “Will the Republicans win the House?” to “How big will their majority be?”
Damning stuff from Director Blue. Read the whole thing, but the excerpt should whet your appetite:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
We all knew he was profoundly ignorant when it came to the Constitution, but even this is remarkable. More (from the comments):
“… there was a conservative at the U of Chicago that writes in Forbes…”.
Dr John Lott. When he first met Obama he introduced himself. Obama just said “Oh, yeh. The gun guy. I don’t believe people should have guns”.
John offered to discuss the issue over lunch (maybe he should have offered a beer summit? – Ed.). Obama just made a face and turned away.
Lott says he never met any other academic so uninterested in hearing different points of view.
But hey, just take his word for it when he says “I’m not an ideologue”, m’kay?
Yessirree, that Constitutional law scholar currently wasting oxygen at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. had this nugget in his STFU SOTU speech the other night:
We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we’re all created equal…
I don’t know how to break this to you, James Madison, but there is nothing about us being “created equal” in the Constitution. That’s in the Declaration of Independence. The closest thing that the Constitution comes to discussing “equally” is the 14th Amendment, which says that the laws of the land will be applied equally to all. That is not the same thing as being “created equal”, now is it? You’d think a Constitutional law scholar would kinda know that and stuff.
In fairness to Chairman Zero, he’s not the first liberal constitutional law scholar president to be hamhanded about it. Remember this from Bubba during a campaign rally in 1996?
The last time I checked, the Constitution said, “of the people, by the people and for the people.” That’s what the Declaration of Independence says.
Well, which was it: the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? Actually, neither: it was the Gettysburg Address.
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that liberals only pretend to know and honor the Constitution!
1. Chris Matthews says he forgot B.O. was a black man “for and hour”. Awaiting howls of racial condemnation from the left in 3…2…1…
2. B.O. criticized the recent Supreme Court decision that allows businesses and organizations to exercise their First Amendment rights. Justice Alito dissented, publicly. Rep. Joe Wilson just called to tell Justice Alito that he could have been a little more vocal about it. Anywho, you would figure that a constitutional law professor like Uhhhh-bama would be a little more familiar with the Constitution and with Supreme Court precedents.
3. Not content with the negative fallout from his unpopular socialized medicine plan, B.O. thought trying to implement another massively unpopular policy (allowing gays to serve openly in the military) would be just the thing to get America back on his side.
5. Fact check: You know, Obama’s kinda full of bovine feces on a bunch of things he said last night, huh?
6. Russ (via Ace) said that the big winner from the SOTU speech was…Jimmy Carter. How? Because now, Carter is no longer the official worst president we’ve seen in our lifetime. B.O. now has that dubious distinction. After all, can you ever recall a president that was a lame duck after just ONE year?
Dude, this chick is just scary as Hades. Details:
As Harry Reid’s health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn’t the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?
In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are “nonsensical,” because “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.” We eagerly await your orders, ma’am!
Wow. According to her logic (and that of statists like her), Congress can pretty much regulate anything without limit…that annoying and pesky Constitution thingy be damned.
Sen. Burris (D-IL) quotes “health” passage in Constitution in order to justify forced purchasing of health insurance
There’s just one teensy, slight, insignificant problem, Senator: the word “health” does not appear one time in the Constitution. Details (with video clip):
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government “to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country” when asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance. The word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution.
“Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country,” said Burris. “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”
When asked if he should be aware of the Constitution to which he was sworn to uphold, Burris quoted Vincent Gambini in My Cousin Vinny: “You were serious about that?”
It’s possible I made up the last sentence in the Burris quote. But I’m giving Burris the Rush treatment: he has to prove to me that he didn’t say it. Until he does, I’m saying the quote is legit. That’s how I roll.
It’s always been scary that San Fran Nan was in the House, much less Speaker of it. To have such a profound ignorance of the Constitution she has sworn to protect is outrageous. Details:
CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
Notes Gateway Pundit:
Or, in other words, the Pelosi-Obama regime can force you to buy burnt monkey droppings if they want to.
Or any other product, for that matter. How soon until the feds require that we buy cars from Government Motors?
Her claim that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution would be hilarious were she not (a) a sworn protector of the Constitution (well, “officially” anyway) and (b) not second in line to the presidency. By her “logic” (and I do use that term oh so loosely), Congress can compel you and me to buy anything. Is that really what the Founding Fathers wrote or intended? The only money that Congress can constitutionally compel us to pay is in the form of taxes. A “health insurance mandate” doesn’t count.
Also, considering that each state’s health insurance industries are contain within the state (thanks to Congress’ prohibition of allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines), what we’re talking about here is intrastate commerce, not interstate. As such, Congress has no Interstate Commerce authority to force us to buy health insurance, or any other darned thing for that matter.
Her anemic credentials notwithstanding, there may be a bigger obstacle to Hill taking the Sec State gig: the Constitution. From Marc Ambinder:
Pete Williams of NBC raised the question on MSNBC this afternoon: Is Hillary Clinton barred by the Constitution from accepting the post of secretary of state?
Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
This is not the first time this Article has stood in the way of a cabinet appointment. In 1973, at the height of Watergate, President Richard Nixon nominated William Saxbe (R) to be Attorney General and the issue was raised because Saxbe was in the Senate in 1969 when the Attorney General’s pay was raised.
In that instance, Congress lowered the pay for the AG, allowing the appointment to proceed. Democratic Senators complained, however, and 10 senators actually voted against the transparent scheme on constitutional grounds. At the time, Sen. Robert C. Byrd deemed it was clearly unconstitutional saying we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.
It will be interesting to see if Sen. Byrd (D-KKK) has any similar constitutional concerns as he did 30+ years ago. Then again, liberals have said they want judges who are willing to ignore the Constitution if it advances the liberal agenda, so I doubt they lose any sleep over this matter.
From Stop the ACLU:
Further proof of this came this week in the Pittsburgh City Council during the debate on an unconstitutional gun bill the city was trying to institute. After the lopsided vote was over — with the anti-constitution side winning — Councilwoman Tonya Payne told everyone that would listen that she didn’t care about the U.S. Constitution.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine.”
That, my friends, is the perfect illustration of how your average liberal sees the Constitution. Keep this in mind anytime you hear some leftist act indignant about a Republican politician “shredding the Constitution”, because apparently, “shredding the Constitution” is fine so long as it’s a liberal that is manning the shredder.
A scary, yet unsurprising, look in to the gourds of liberals. From Rasmussen:
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
Remember this whenever you hear some brain-dead leftard rant about Bush supposedly “trashing the Constitution”, OK? The left cares about the Constitution only when it serves their interest. The rest of the time, it’s just a cocktail napkin that the Founding Fathers scribbled some words on the back of.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett