60 vote threshold, CA Prop 8, Emperor, Emporor Obama, filibuster, invididual mandate, juddge, Marriage, monarch, National Labor Relations Board, Obamacare, open and shut, overruling, President Obama, recess appointments, republic, Senate, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, tax, unconstitutional, US Constitution, US Supreme Court
Today the US Supreme Court will hear the case regarding unconstitutional actions taken by President Obama. Part of this stems from three “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board during a time when the Senate was, per the Constitution, still in session.
It seems that rules — just like the 60 vote threshold/filibuster – which were okay for Senator Obama are now unacceptable for President Obama. Interesting how that happens. Emperor Obama apparently believes it is in his purview to define what “is” is pertaining to whether the Senate is in session or not.
Since the lower courts have maintained his actions were unconstitutional, it would seem to be basically an open and shut case, right?
So it seemed when the Supreme Court had to judge whether or not the individual mandate was constitutional. In that case, the mandate simply needed to be evaluated against the commerce clause of the US Constitution. The SCOTUS indeed ruled the individual mandate was not in concert with the commerce clause — but then threw a curve ball. Chief Justice Roberts defined the individual mandate as a tax – after we were told it wasn’t – and thereby deemed it constitutional as part of Congress’ taxing authority.
Are any members of the Supreme Court perturbed by such judicial activism? Another case in point — overruling the 2008 people’s referendum in California (Proposition 8) to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Sure seems there is a lot of “unconstitutional” activity going on in Washington DC these days — as well as lots of lying.
When Benjamin Franklin was leaving that storied hall in Philadelphia after the construct of our US Constitution, a woman supposedly asked whether our nation would have a monarchy or a republic. Franklin’s response then is our challenge today: “a Republic ma’am, if you can keep it.”
While liberal progressive disciples in the media want to persuade us that closing two lanes of traffic in New Jersey is a national catastrophe, the real catastrophe, one with far-reaching ramifications, presents itself clearly before our eyes.
Too many Americans have “eyes wide shut,” and their heads in the sand. They are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the travesty that is the piecemeal destruction of our Constitutional Republic by an overreaching executive branch enabled by its fifth estate media accomplices
Learn more here