Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain ‘Obamacare’ Statements
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)
Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.
“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President — stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review,” Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.
“The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific,” he added.
Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be “an unprecedented and extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by “a democratically elected Congress.”
“I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and — and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Obama’s argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” he said.
“Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes,” Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.
Smith didn’t back down explaining that Obama’s statements had “troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that’s not a small matter.” He also referred to the law in question as “Obamacare,” an informal reference that has been politically charged.
Kaersvang again reiterated the administration’s deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.
Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.
Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it’s been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care.
“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it,” he said, “but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.”
You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE:
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-demands-obama-explain-obamacare-statements-000508798--abc-news-politics.html
By Devin Dwyer | ABC OTUS News
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)
In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.
Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.
"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President - stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review," Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific," he added.
Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by "a democratically elected Congress."
"I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and - and passed law," Obama said. "Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."Obama's argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" he said.
"Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes," Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.Smith didn't back down explaining that Obama's statements had "troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that's not a small matter." He also referred to the law in question as "Obamacare," an informal reference that has been politically charged.
Kaersvang again reiterated the administration's deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.
Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.
Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it's been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care."The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it," he said, "but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress."
You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE. It begins at 18:01 into the recording.
ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.
Also Readhttp://news.yahoo.com/judge-upset-obamas-comments-health-care-law-010429840.html
By | Associated Press
HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.
The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.
During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress."I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.
A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.
However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said.
The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a telephone call late Tuesday seeking comment.
White House officials had no comment on Smith's statements, instead referring to comments Obama made earlier Tuesday at the annual meeting of The Associated Press in Washington.
At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."
___
Associated Press writer Will Lester in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
By Frank Salvato
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,”questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “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,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.
Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”
The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.
---
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,”questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “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,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.
Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”
The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.
---
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.
Alert: Public Advocate on radical Watch List
Public Advocate is once again under attack in national news.
You see, the radical Homosexual Lobby has specifically targeted Public Advocate for destruction.
They want us shut down for good.
They have demanded you and I stop all operations... that I step down from all public roles... that we cease to talk about the radical homosexual agenda entirely.
Silenced. Disbanded. Destroyed.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) launched an online petition to have Public Advocate banned from the internet -- banned from sending any emails at all.
But now the Homosexual Lobby has upped the ante through their allies at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to the SPLC, Public Advocate is a hate group.
They claim that our defense of true marriage and traditional morals is an act of hate and offensive to homosexuals.
They have placed Public Advocate on its Watch List and announced to every radical homosexual and sympathizer that I have to be stopped at all cost.
With our looming victory in Tennessee and the growing fights for real marriage in Maryland, Washington and California -- we have become Enemy #1.
And now even silencing us is not safe enough for them.
With the SPLC leading the charge, they want to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
You see, Southern Poverty Law Center has literally written the book on discrediting conservative groups.
They label anyone who disagrees with the ever-changing Liberal Agenda as “hatemongers” or “evil.”
Now they are focused on you and me because the Homosexual Lobby has become increasingly central to the SPLC’s mission.
They want to destroy any belief in morality, or traditional families, or even in gender -- and they have as much as $168 million in assets.
It is heartbreaking to see how much cash they command. But it is nothing less than a sign of God’s favor that you and I are holding them off with only a fraction of the resources.
It is up to you and me to fight them every time; for every classroom... for every church... for every family.
But now they are beating the war drums and gathering their army -- and they are finding many allies.
With the SPLC’s declaration of war, the entire radical Liberal Lobby is taking aim at me.
Big Media has taken SPLC’s side -- repeating the same unfounded accusations and outright lies -- while leaders in the Democrat Party have launched public smear campaigns against me personally.
They want to destroy my credibility and my mission.
And so I have a personal request of you today Blaine.
The SPLC and their allies have demanded that I stop talking to you about their agenda.
I could never do that...
But they have also demanded that Public Advocate cease all fundraising operations.
And so I am asking you, right here and right now, to give them your answer.
Will you tell them no?
Will you chip in a quick donation of $10 or more today?
It's only through your financial support and the support of other pro-Family Americans that Public Advocate continues to fight.
The very best way for Public Advocate to answer the SPLC’s hate-filled attack is with an overwhelming show of support.
Every little bit helps.
It is important to me to know you are still with me.
For the Family,
Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate
P.S. The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared Public Advocate to be a hate group for defending tradional morality and true marriage.
They have joined with Human Rights Campaign and even leaders of the Democrat Party in a desperate attempt to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
They have demanded that I step down and desist in all fundraising and community activities, but I have told them absolutely not!
To show the Homosexual Lobby that we will not be beaten down, Would you please defiantly answer them by chipping in a quick $10 donation or more today?
They have joined with Human Rights Campaign and even leaders of the Democrat Party in a desperate attempt to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
They have demanded that I step down and desist in all fundraising and community activities, but I have told them absolutely not!
To show the Homosexual Lobby that we will not be beaten down, Would you please defiantly answer them by chipping in a quick $10 donation or more today?
RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
Click HERE to download the PDF version
Paid for by Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee www.ronpaul2012.com
| SYNOPSIS: America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms. DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done. SPENDING: Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels. ENTITLEMENTS: Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs. | CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE: Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker. TAXES: Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg. REGULATION: Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order. MONETARY POLICY: Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. CONCLUSION: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. |
Discretionary Spending
Mandatory Spending
Miscellaneous Savings
Revenues
Summary Table
Budget Comparisons
Agency Budget Comparison
Historical Spending, Revenue, and Deficits
Charts and Graphs
Get Ready for 'Unlawful Presence Waivers'
By Bobby Eberle
This one is hard to believe! It appears that the Obama administration is dead set on granting amnesty to illegal aliens no matter what the current laws state or what the will of the American people is. Illegal means illegal, right? Unlawful means unlawful, doesn't it? Perhaps not. Obama's team is now working on what it calls "unlawful presence waivers" to allow certain illegal aliens to stay in the United States. If their "presence" is "unlawful," isn't it just a little bit stupid to grant a waiver?
As reported by Judicial Watch, this new directive would "apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens."
According to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement ... the agency will grant "unlawful presence waivers" to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that's a U.S. citizen.According to the summary of the rule as posted on the Federal Register, the new rule is being implemented, because the existing waiver application process "can take well over a year, and the prolonged separation from immediate relatives can cause many U.S. citizens to experience extreme humanitarian and financial hardships." Come on, folks! We are talking about people who came here illegally, and we are supposed to not only ignore the laws on the books, but also create new ones that make it easier to break the law?
Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn't make sense.
From Judicial Watch:
This appears to be part of the Obama Administration's bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas's largest newspaper published an expose about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients' deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.Just like so many other actions taken by Barack Obama, if current laws don't suit his liking, he goes around them. This is a blatant and ominous show of disrespect for the laws of the United States for the sole purpose of promoting a left wing agenda. Illegal means illegal. Get with the program!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)