TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama vs the Constitution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama vs the Constitution

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I did not want to hijack the previous thread on illegal immigration so I thought I would respond here.

I am quoting Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, the youngest life tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. He is a nationally recognized expert on the U.S. Constitution. He lectures nationally on the Constitution and human freedom. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and received his Juris Doctor from the University of Nortre Dame.

That said, the judge refers to Obama as one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail. He says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments." he says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer generated dollers in a way that the Congress wants it done.

The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law.."

This goes on and on and on . But I don't have the time right now. This is only the tip of what this learned man has said.

So, maybe Obama taught Constitutional Law but I think I would put the judge up against him any day. Although, it probably wouldn't work out too well for our president.
post #2 of 29
Annnnd, so? Both conservative and liberal governments from the community level all the way to the Federal level have passed unconstitutional legislation for centuries. That is WHY we have a judicial branch, and WHY we have court challenges. All you are seeing is democracy in action. Is the fact that the system is working a problem?

The way I see it, even if Obama's health care proposal is completely discarded, he has already succeeded. He has pulled it out of the "no see 'em" political limbo it was in, and has it being addressed. That's years ahead of where it was.
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
I am responding to your question of "what has he done that is unconstitutional".

Yes, the courts will have to decide. Meanwhile, we are going to have to start paying for this soon. If deemed unconstitutional, will we be seeing a refund? I think not.
post #4 of 29
Mr. Napolitano is now a commentator for, wait for it, Fox News! He left the bench to pursue his media career and describes himself as a Catholic libertarian. At one point he had a TV show along the lines of the Peoples Court, and he's considered running for public office. Oh, dear......
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
And what is your point? Does the fact that he works for the most watched cable news station change his qualifications? And I guess I miss the point of him running for office. That is bad?

He did not work for Fox while obtaining his degrees. Or while he presided over 150 trials while on the bench from 1987-1995 and sat in on all parts of the Superior Court, criminal, civil, general equity and family.

Because you do not like or watch Fox news, does not take away from the facts. Millions of people do like Fox. I don't want to turn this into a pro and con Fox News.

The judge has no ax to grind, his qualifications to comment on the current administration stand by themselves. He has more knowledge of the judicial system than Obama could ever hope for in a lifetime.

Actually, I hope he does run for office. It would be a breath of fresh air.
post #6 of 29
Just pointing out the man's background (including quitting the bench for a media career - like a certain recent governor leaving her position mid-term). Can't hurt knowing his background, or what his choices have been, right? Lends a certain perspective to his thoughts, woudln't you agree? The guy went to fine schools, just like the President, no denying.

I do think Napolitano might possibly have an ax to grind, or ratings to expand, given his current position and possible future hopes.

BTW, why exclude his current job from the quote - otherwise people might think he's an actual sitting judge.
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
I guess I am missing your point. Yes, he works for Fox. Again, so? I never mentioned Sarah Palin. Not an issue here. Let's just stick to the subject of Obama vs the Constitution. I really don't understand peoples buttons being pushed when Fox news is mentioned.

Again, he has a long and distinguished career in law. It is a free country (so far). Obama left his job as a community organizer to become president. Everyone has a history. We all don't end up with the same jobs we started out with.

Is Fox the only channel with a legal expert?
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
I am responding to your question of "what has he done that is unconstitutional".

Yes, the courts will have to decide. Meanwhile, we are going to have to start paying for this soon. If deemed unconstitutional, will we be seeing a refund? I think not.
Because nothing he has done has been adjudicated as unconstitutional. In fact, there hasn't even been a challenge actually filed yet.

So, thus far, nothing. Just another personal opinion.

So, what's he done that's unconstitutional?
post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Yes a personal opinion, based in knowledge of the constitution. I think his opinion carrys more weight than yours or mine. I am not a constitutional schollar, I do not know about you. When I want an opinion, I tend to seek out an expert. Just like seeing a doctor. He may suspect what is wrong with you. It is his educated opinion. It comes from experience. Same thing with this.

A challenge to this will have to wait till 2014 until it is fully operational. Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Even then, it takes an average of 4 years for a case to work its way through the court. So we are looking at 2018.

So, we can only wait. Obama will be long gone by then, but the havoc this administration has wrecked on this country, I fear will last for many years.

Again, this is just one issue. Healthcare. This country is so divided. I thought he was going to unite and build bridges. I think the only change we can be sure of is what is in our pockets at the end of his term.
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
Yes a personal opinion, based in knowledge of the constitution. I think his opinion carrys more weight than yours or mine. I am not a constitutional schollar, I do not know about you. When I want an opinion, I tend to seek out an expert. Just like seeing a doctor. He may suspect what is wrong with you. It is his educated opinion. It comes from experience. Same thing with this.

A challenge to this will have to wait till 2014 until it is fully operational. Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Even then, it takes an average of 4 years for a case to work its way through the court. So we are looking at 2018.

So, we can only wait. Obama will be long gone by then, but the havoc this administration has wrecked on this country, I fear will last for many years.

Again, this is just one issue. Healthcare. This country is so divided. I thought he was going to unite and build bridges. I think the only change we can be sure of is what is in our pockets at the end of his term.
Actually, as he is now a private citizen, he opinion doesn't carry any more weight that yours, or mine. He is, just as we are, free to state that opinion. But, it's just an opinion. And again, as we don't know how much of either side he actually considered, it may not even be a good opinion at that.
post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 
Or...he may be correct. Time will only tell.
post #12 of 29
If Obama is showing a lack of respect for the constitution, he has plenty of company in past presidents.

Quote:
Repeatedly through our history, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution have been threatened in war by an overreacting government and then reaffirmed in peace by calmer leadership. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the suppression of free speech during and after World War I, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, McCarthyism, and the wiretapping of Vietnam-era dissenters — all of these came to be seen, once fears subsided, as violations of our freedoms and embarrassments to our heritage.

George W. Bush's presidency is another era of overreaction at the expense of constitutional rights, but the prospects for a quick correction are not auspicious. Nothing has helped end earlier bouts of repression so much as the fact that the wars themselves came to a close, and nothing has so exposed our liberties to indefinite jeopardy as the conception of a "war on terrorism" with no end.

The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture — and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.

But there is something more dangerous than any of these specific abuses and usurpations, and that is the theory of inherent powers that Bush invokes to justify most of these actions and the possibility of its being effectively institutionalized by a meek Congress and, worst of all, by a deferential Supreme Court.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1334435.shtml
post #13 of 29
Now, for a reality check:

The judge is very strong on constitutional matters, and although he works on Fox News, he was very critical of many actions of the Bush administration. He is truly independent, and has been right on many analyses on which he disagreed with the common thinking.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Now, for a reality check:

The judge is very strong on constitutional matters, and although he works on Fox News, he was very critical of many actions of the Bush administration. He is truly independent, and has been right on many analyses on which he disagreed with the common thinking.
And he no longer has any authority of adjudication, which makes his opinion one of many. Some are educated, some are borrowed from pundits, and some are just ghost stories. And that goes for both sides (or all 3 or more sides)
post #15 of 29
Thread Starter 
I don't really see how the fact that he is no longer on the bench affects the knowledge he has.

You see retired military officers offering their expertise all the time on tv. Retired lawyers giving their opinions on trials. They draw from experience.

Just because someone is not "practicing" their proficiency in a subject is not diminished.
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
I don't really see how the fact that he is no longer on the bench affects the knowledge he has.

You see retired military officers offering their expertise all the time on tv. Retired lawyers giving their opinions on trials. They draw from experience.

Just because someone is not "practicing" their proficiency in a subject is not diminished.
Very good comparison. Those retired officers give their opinions all the time on TV. Those retired lawyers give their opinions on trials. How often do battle plans get drawn up based on those televised opinions? How many courts take those lawyers televised opinions under consideration?

In other words, everyone is free to present their opinion, and they can present it from experience. I did the same in the immigration thread, quoting my experience as a cop. But you know what? I'm not expecting any law enforcement agency, anywhere, to put any of what I say to use. Because, I'm out of the game. So is the judge...so are the retired officers...so are the retired lawyers. In my case, and those, it comes down to a case of making our best guess. How often do court verdicts surprise everyone? About half the time, give or take, and this will likely be no exception. There are lots of things that have happened over the last 10 years or so that I honestly feel are unconstitutional. But until they have made it through the judicial branch, bottom to top, they are not considered so, and may never be, depending on how the courts rule.
post #17 of 29
Although Napolitano was very interesting on the Arizona law - he was a heck of a lot more blunt than was the President's assessment, but I think they found common ground on that law, at least.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
And what is your point? Does the fact that he works for the most watched cable news station change his qualifications? And I guess I miss the point of him running for office. That is bad?

He did not work for Fox while obtaining his degrees. Or while he presided over 150 trials while on the bench from 1987-1995 and sat in on all parts of the Superior Court, criminal, civil, general equity and family.

Because you do not like or watch Fox news, does not take away from the facts. Millions of people do like Fox. I don't want to turn this into a pro and con Fox News.

The judge has no ax to grind, his qualifications to comment on the current administration stand by themselves. He has more knowledge of the judicial system than Obama could ever hope for in a lifetime.

Actually, I hope he does run for office. It would be a breath of fresh air.
I have noticed that many people attack the source, whether it is a website or a person to deflect from debating the content.
Don't let it bother you, it just means, well you know what it means.
post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 
The judge is not expecting the Supreme Court to jump into this fray and call out Obama.

The world revolves on opinions. Even the Supreme Court. And their opinions are made laws.

The judge's only intent is to inform the American people, from his educated and experienced history, the questionable tactics this administration is using. I have not even delved into the "backroom deals" that allowed this bill to become law. That is also an issue.

The judge is the first to say that this will be determined through the courts. He is explaining to us the procedures that must be followed.

If I had a friend who is a retired doctor and I had a pain....I would ask him his opinion before I asked the meter reader. Opinioins do carry some weight when based in experience.
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
The judge is not expecting the Supreme Court to jump into this fray and call out Obama.

The world revolves on opinions. Even the Supreme Court. And their opinions are made laws.
And you notice the Supreme Court is being very quiet. That's because they don't make off the cuff judgments based on what they've managed to pick up on by watching the news and reading pundit blogs. They wait until the case is presented, in full, by informed counsel with all admissible evidence. THEN, they make a judgment.

Quote:
The judge's only intent is to inform the American people, from his educated and experienced history, the questionable tactics this administration is using. I have not even delved into the "backroom deals" that allowed this bill to become law. That is also an issue.

The judge is the first to say that this will be determined through the courts. He is explaining to us the procedures that must be followed.
Tactics of which his entire knowledge comes from "what he's heard". If he's any kind of a judge, he'd know that's not how cases are decided.

Quote:
If I had a friend who is a retired doctor and I had a pain....I would ask him his opinion before I asked the meter reader. Opinioins do carry some weight when based in experience.
And as the retired doctor friend was simply giving an opinion, and is no longer practicing, you couldn't sue him when he turned out to be wrong.
post #21 of 29
So does anyone actually have an opinion about what the judge said, or just the judge himself?

I'd hate to add the wrong input
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
And he no longer has any authority of adjudication, which makes his opinion one of many. Some are educated, some are borrowed from pundits, and some are just ghost stories. And that goes for both sides (or all 3 or more sides)
No, he can't rule. But he can file amicus briefs, and he can say what he thinks a ruling is likely to be, and he has a very good track record. Much better, for example than Geraldo Rivera (who many don't know is also a lawyer).
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLucas976 View Post
So does anyone actually have an opinion about what the judge said, or just the judge himself?

I'd hate to add the wrong input
I suspect it will take years for a lot of the items to roll through the courts. After all, we're still getting rulings on government actions soon after 9/11.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
No, he can't rule. But he can file amicus briefs, and he can say what he thinks a ruling is likely to be, and he has a very good track record. Much better, for example than Geraldo Rivera (who many don't know is also a lawyer).
Agreed. But any citizen or citizen's group can file Amicus briefs as well, and anyone can say what they think a ruling is likely to be, and if they can find a network that will pay them, some of them can make a living doing it.

I quit watching Geraldo after the "Al Capone's vault" fiasco.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLucas976 View Post
So does anyone actually have an opinion about what the judge said, or just the judge himself?

I'd hate to add the wrong input
The judge gave his opinion. Everybody has one. The point I was trying to make is that as there has been no case filed, then there has been nothing admitted or classified as evidence, therefore, anything he says is simply his best guess based on reports from goodness knows where...which any of us can do too.
post #26 of 29
wait, I thought there were like 13 states or so that filed against the healthcare reform nonsense? New Jersey being one of them. (I'm in NY so all I saw all over was NJ filling for whatever against it)

Thats litterally all the information I could find the day after he signed the bill, what happened to those guys?
post #27 of 29
Several more states have joined the lawsuits, but court watchers give very little chance of it succeeding.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLucas976 View Post
wait, I thought there were like 13 states or so that filed against the healthcare reform nonsense? New Jersey being one of them. (I'm in NY so all I saw all over was NJ filling for whatever against it)

Thats litterally all the information I could find the day after he signed the bill, what happened to those guys?
Oops, sorry, my mistake. The cases are filed, but no hearings as of yet, so still no admitted or recognized evidence. All the "findings" by all the experts at this point is mere soothsaying.
post #29 of 29
phew, I'm not insane, thought maybe it was wishful thinking for a seccond

I was really rooting for em too, I think alot of what resulted from what could have been a decent idea is insane and way out of line as far as governmental limits, but like was mentioned before, its not as if it's never happened.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama vs the Constitution