Wednesday, February 3, 2010

President vs. Supreme Court & Constitution?

Originally posted on The Desk of Brian, at


"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."1

Justice Alito mouthing "Not True" met criticisms from Democrats.

"I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school.2

What should concern us is the flippant comment about circumventing the Constitution:

"This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."1

 It's not a question of if, it's already put together as Bloomberg reports. If an executive order gets the President what he wants, then an executive order it shall be.

 The language of the two branches are poignantly opposed to one another.

 President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts

This dispute carries across party lines, blurring the intent of Free Speech under the guise of corruption and evil big business. Likewise, the dissenters pretend that the current landscape shields corporations from funding political parties, candidates or ads, but in fact, these entities muddle the process by creating faux foundations to funnel funds to endorse their political preference.

 The Supreme Court's decision upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.

 Of course, as with Nancy Pelosi, the President seems to think we are "kidding" when we demand our politicians abide by the limits of the Constitution. (see below for Pelosi exchange)

Frankly Mr. President, I'm NOT kidding.

1. Read the entire SOU transcript: Barack Obama - 2010 State of Union address

Pelosi exhange on health care "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" "Yes, yes I am."

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.

No comments:

Post a Comment