Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case Published April 03, 201

reply to post by TomScruise


You are very right TomScruise. I appreciate the reply. I could not have put it better myself.

reply to post by Helious


Nicely stated, Brother. Perhaps you should be my mentor.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Helious

 

Thank you Halious...just as I concluded in my own mind. but, that won't stop the situation from becoming fodder in election rhetoric.

I feel the deep rumble of twin spin machines gearing up....

Des

That is correct and also very sad. It is sad because republican or democrat should mean as outlined by our founding fathers very, very little. It should mean tiny differences in small government policies that affect a small percentage of the population. This is not the case on any level in America anymore.

Our government was created, designed and put to work with the premise and ideal of freedom. We have our law, we have our government and we have our national values. We have all of these things in the documents and the quotes and the practices of our founding fathers, how is it that we have become so lost when our existence as a country, as citizens of this great nation have already been clearly outlined for us and have been done so with tears and blood? How indeed have we LET this happen?

There is only true law in this country, one thing that even makes us a country and one thing that makes us different from every other country on Earth and that is our Constitution of the United States of America. That is the supreme law all others are derived from. It does include the Deceleration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. That is our legacy, that is our history and that is our right.

Anyone who should go against those documents are a traitor to this country and it's people. That is what our country was founded on, how it was built and exactly why we are all here. There is no higher law and the American people are the fourth branch of government that trumps the first three should they decide not to uphold the heritage that makes us all American by right. Don't ever forget that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Helious

 

Nicely stated, Brother. Perhaps you should be my mentor.

Not possible, I admire you too much and you grant me too much inspiration, It is very good to see you posting here and in other threads I have seen, I have read what you have written carefully and very much agree.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What good is it to draw lines in quicksand...on both sides.

I do so fear the loss of our beloved Constitution. Not really being taught in school anymore. When something loses it's perceived value...the loss becomes negligible. Are we seeing the end of America, as we knew Her.

Des

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Do you honestly think a low federal court can order anyone, even the President, to explain comments they made in public.

edit on 3-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Yes, this court is hearing an issue related to the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Justice is representing Barack Obama the Chief of our Executive branch. He is the defendant in the case - the court wants to make sure that he understands that they do indeed have the authority and duty to review this case and that he must submit to its judgment. They are requiring his lawyers explain that fact to him with proper case law and citation.

If a defendant said outside of court in say a press conference on a murder case - "only god can judge me" a court might ask for his lawyers to explain to him how and why they could an world hear and judge on the case and that it was legally binding.

It is to prevent later the defendant from calling for mistrial in that the venue wasn't valid or appropriate. The intent being to inform him of his right to due process and an explanation thereof so he can't claim ignorance.

Annother difference is that most defendants don't make the claim to be constitutional schollars like Ole Barry.

Separation of Powers.

That's the basis for such a move. For the Executive to 'warn' against Judicial Branch or challenge their authority is borderline treason.

I have no love for the Supremes, but they're correct to ask for clarification, and they are just as 'powerful' in many instances. We forget that Government consists or 3 branches so much so we see a President as a god.

It's just not the case.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Do you honestly think a low federal court can order anyone, even the President, to explain comments they made in public.

edit on 3-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Yes, this court is hearing an issue related to the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Justice is representing Barack Obama the Chief of our Executive branch. He is the defendant in the case - the court wants to make sure that he understands that they do indeed have the authority and duty to review this case and that he must submit to its judgment. They are requiring his lawyers explain that fact to him with proper case law and citation.

If a defendant said outside of court in say a press conference on a murder case - "only god can judge me" a court might ask for his lawyers to explain to him how and why they could an world hear and judge on the case and that it was legally binding.

It is to prevent later the defendant from calling for mistrial in that the venue wasn't valid or appropriate. The intent being to inform him of his right to due process and an explanation thereof so he can't claim ignorance.

Annother difference is that most defendants don't make the claim to be constitutional schollars like Ole Barry.

You make an excellent point my friend, one I had not thought of, I will have something to research before bed, thank you!

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What good is it to draw lines in quicksand...on both sides.

I do so fear the loss of our beloved Constitution. Not really being taught in school anymore. When something loses it's perceived value...the loss becomes negligible. Are we seeing the end of America, as we knew Her.

Des

I am not so concerned about the Constitution not being taught - particularly in the public schools - as I am it being "taught". What schools teach today is indoctrination. I tutor college and high school kids for extra money. I had a client taking an introductory Sociology course as a sophomore in collage. He came to me out of frustration because no matter how hard he studied he kept screwing up answers on what were largely multiple choice question on tests. He was angry and hard to deal with at first, but I finally got him to relax and start pointing to what was making him so angry. He was angry because he the class made him feel stupid and he knew better.

I asked him to point to something specific that made him feel stupid. What he pointed to was a section in the text book that stated: "Sociologist Donald Black say's that all law is governmental social control". I asked him why this made him feel stupid. He said it was because he got it wrong on a multiple choice test and that he had read that statement several times over in his studies and couldn't understand how he missed it on the test. I asked him; "So you got the answer wrong?" He said; "Yes." I pushed a bit further asking if he was sure that he was wrong. Finally it dawned on him what I was getting at and he asked if Donald Black was wrong. I asked the question back to him. He thought about it and shrugged not knowing how to answer.

He is a history major so I suggested that we go back in time and ask King George in 1776 what he thought about governmental social control. At this time Egypt was in uprising, I suggested we give Mubarak a call and ask him what he thought about government social control. Suddenly my student was insisting that Donald Black was without a doubt wrong. At first this pleased him and he was happy, but he soon realized that this really didn't solve his problem about getting the answer right on the test, and understandably so. This is where my job actually comes in. Not to teach the kids how to parrot indoctrination, but how to think critically, and how to memorize the propaganda in order to navigate the politics of academia. I assured him that once he understood that even if the data being force fed to him was useless data, that as long as he knew it to be useless he would find ways to reconcile that and give his teacher what he wanted.

Anyway, schools are teaching crap like "all law is governmental social control". Do we really want those same schools teaching Constitutional principles?

People should understand what the Supremes and lower courts are saying is a collective "excuse me?" to Obama.

The Judicial Branch likes to be recognized as the 'check' to power it is. Once talk starts of them being "insignificant' or not worth their weight, people start to get nervous because many Dictatorships arose with attacks on Judiciary powers. One of the first acts of a hostile takeover is a President, Chancellor, Minister to start talk like this.

A lot of saber rattling but for good reason..

I.E. the Right Hand is telling the Left Hand it's not as useful.

As for the Supreme's decision that we can all be strip searched in custody, well it's just an example of how they can get it wrong.

reply to post by PaxVeritas

As for the Supreme's decision that we can all be strip searched in custody, well it's just an example of how they can get it wrong.

Respectfully, I disagree that the SCOTUS got Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders wrong:

In 1998, seven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.

Florence was arrested for an outstanding warrant that should not still have been in the system:

Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center. He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court.

Florence went after the wrong party over this travesty. It was not the arresting officers fault that this computer glitch existed, and it certainly was not the jailers fault. Florence went after a policy that has legal merit. He was, after all, being introduced into a system that held many violent offenders and criminals and the SCOTUS correctly pointed out that the search was not only within the right of the government it was arguably a responsibility. Florence should not have been arrested to begin with, but he should have gone after the parties responsible for his mistaken arrest, which would be the department that screwed up and left his name in the system after he settled the bench warrant.

In terms of how this ruling affects the rest of us, it still does not excuse false arrest. Since the arresting police officer operated upon good faith that the warrant was valid the arrest was not a criminal one. However, if a law officer criminally arrests someone then this should be handled by first establishing on record the arrest was a false arrest and then using that public record to file a verified complaint to have the rogue officer arrested and brought to trial. Those falsely arrested will still have to deal with the humiliation of strip search but that ordeal becomes part of the demonstrable harm the rogue arresting officer caused and more than enough to obtain a conviction in a criminal court of law and remedy in a civil court.

I'm
Under the 5th Court..they are the best of the pile

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
He won't be impeached for ignoring an appellete court filled with Republican judges.

Impeachment simply means an accusation. They will impeach him on grounds of ignoring their court order.

Impeachment does not mean removal of office. Prosecution must occur for that to happen.

Nixon wasn't removed from office after his impeachment, he resigned.

reply to post by Noncents


Nixon resigned before he was impeached. It was Bill Clinton who was impeached but only censured and not removed from office.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wow, yeah. Heh, guess I lost it there for a sec. Thanks for reminding me. I've been up too long and I'm off to bed now. G'night ATS.

reply to post by SM2


You know I kind of half agree with you. The only place I think your reasoning fails is that the Founding Fathers had no idea what modern society would be like. It's my understanding that the reason the designed the document the way they did was to ensure it could adapt to changes in society. I mean, if a strict Constitutionalist is as true to the Constitution as they say they are, then black people are only worth 3/5ths of a white person, slavery is still legal, etc etc etc. of course those things were wrong, and the Constitution was amended accordingly. If the FFs were as strict Constitutionalists as many claim to be today, this republic would have failed 100 if not 200 years ago.

It amazes me that there is actually ANYONE on this thread that does not understand that his remarks show either:

1.) A complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution, and the checks and balances inherent in the 3 branches of our government.

OR

2.) he believes that he is above the Constitution or willing is ready to ignore it.


Given Obama's supposed education, I find that the only way option 1 could be true is if:

A.) His education was severely deficient.
or
B) He was given his grades, without even learning about the Constitution.
or
C.)His memory is failing.

Lacking those cop-outs, the only other choice is option 2.

Since I do not know whether he is able to claim A, B or C of option 1, regardless, if it is option 1, then he should be removed as President, since he is not qualified to be president.

If it is option 2, then that is grounds for impeachment.

In a truly just world, in either case, Obama has shown that he is no longer qualified to be president.

I love these checks and balance exchanges between the branches. It's better than WWE!

Second line.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I will remember this when I get a letter from a judge asking me to clarify a statement......Uh Judge go take a flying leap.....Laws apply to everyone including A fake president that has highjacked the office.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I will remember this when I get a letter from a judge asking me to clarify a statement......Uh Judge go take a flying leap.....Laws apply to everyone including A fake president that has highjacked the office.

Do you honestly think any judge has the authority to order any citizen to explain comments they made out in public?

Unless you scream "BOMB" in an airport...you can say anything you want and don't have to explain yourself to a judge.