"A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78The Supreme Court heard arguments against the constitutionality of the individual mandate last week, which is written into Obamacare and which Democrats claim is the heart of the law as well as arguments as to whether it can be severed. The severability clause was originally written into the law which would have allowed parts of the law to be struck down while leaving the law in place but Democrats removed that severability clause in the final bill.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a final ruling on whether the individual mandate is constitutional or unconstitutional by June or July of this year.
At a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada Barack Obama blatantly attempted to influence and intimidate the United States Supreme Court by issuing a "warning" not to overturn his and Democrats healthcare law, widely known as Obamacare.
Obama- "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.
And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
The Supreme Court justices are not elected for a reason and that is so they cannot be influenced nor intimidated by public warnings by a president or any elected official.
So many things this incorrect in Obama's statement it is hard to know where to start, so we will start with that "unelected group of people" also known as The Supreme Court and Obama's use of the word "unprecedented."
One of the powers of the Supreme Court is the power of Judicial Review and it gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn state laws and laws passed by Congress.
Judicial Review from legal dictionary- A court's authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.
Greta Van Susteran reminds readers of Marbury v. Madison, where in 1803 it was decided the Supreme Court had the power to review statutes passed by Congress to determine if constitutional or not.
Marbury v. Madison:-Syllabus
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Then Obama's direct lie that a "strong majority" passed Obamacare through Congress. That statement is addressed quite succinctly by The Sun:
It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. The vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.
Reactions
Leon Wolf over at Red State provides an example, with links, to Obama's overt hypocrisy on Supreme Court rulings:
Of course, in making these comments Obama is exposing himself yet again as a cynical hack who is devoid of anything resembling shame. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by substantially larger margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to strike down this law, which was passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” then-Senator Obama threw an absolute hissy fit about the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).
Rep. Lamar Smith responds to Obama's attempt to influence the highest court of the land by stating "I am very disappointed by our President. That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate."
We The People
The desperation shown by Obama's comments is indicative of his fear that his "signature accomplishment" will be struck down as unconstitutional, something that Republicans, Independents and a majority of Democrats believe it is, as has been found through polling.
72 percent of Americans feel it is not constitutional, 56 percent of Democrats feel that way, 70 percent of Independents and 94 percent of Republicans. Even 54 percent of those that think the obamacare law is good say the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
CNN/Opinion Research shows 50 percent are against or opposed to Obamacare with 43 percent in favor.
Rasmussen shows 54 percent opposed, with 40 percent in favor of Obamacare.
Reason-Rupe finds 50 percent opposed with 32 percent in favor of Obamacare.
Quinnipiac finds 52 percent opposed with 39 percent in favor of Obamacare.
Once again Barack Obama puts himself in direct opposition of the majority of Americans, the very same people that he is attempting to convince to give him a second term.
.
