“I am confident 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.” –President Barack Obama, April 2.
Regarding the bolded part, is this statement true? I’m curious why the President would make this assertion.
Inelegant phrasing. The President explained his intended meaning today.
I almost started a pit thread about this but couldn’t be arsed ultimately. Obama taught constitutional law, so he must have read Marbury v. Madison, which very clearly establishes that the Court can overturn a law passed by a duly elected, democratic congress. And he must have read dozens of other cases where the Court did, in fact, strike down a law passed by congress.
It’s sad to see Obama act stupid and pander to . . . some people (GD, eh?).
Hahaha… well well well. Shoving the rhetoric right back atcha, Kennedy ol’ boy!
Interested parties could start by reviewing Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States. Page 2117 of the document, but you can download just the section. The section is 44 pages and, alas, doesn’t indicate by what majority any particular law passed. (If it did, they probably wouldn’t weasel out with ‘strong’.)
Ahh, politics.
That’s interesting. You think Obama specifically chose that phrasing as a dig at Justice Kennedy?
The statement is not true, and I do not know why the President would make it. There are many instances of laws passed with large majorities being found unconstitutional. Of the scope we are discussing here, Schechter immediately comes to mind.
Also springing immediately to mind is Citizens United, which struck down provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
I’m sure others can come up with examples, both recent and historic.
Also, Obama’s subsequent remarks make little sense. I don’t think any burden of evidence is on the plan’s opponents. The law is either constitutional or it isn’t - and this is the question before the Court.
Because of this strange tangent, a panel of the 5th Circuit has ordered the Justice Department to write a three page letter stating whether they believe courts have the power to make these decisions, before moving forward with the hearing.
I am, of course, not a lawyer.
Since Kennedy is probably the bill’s best chance, it was probably less a dig (as I implied) and more trying to recast it, counting on all the Justice’s problems with what to do if they did rule it unconstitutional. But I don’t think any of them would be scared by the fact that Congress has to pass 2000-page bills into law, already a terrible practice we seem hopelessly stuck with.
Thanks for reminding me of that, Mr Moro. I totally heart the fifth circuit here.
On a different note, at least Obama gave con law classes across the country something to guffaw at this week.
Let’s remember that Schechter found the enabling legislation for a large government agency (the NRA) unconstitutional.
That’s a mighty big precedent.
The NRA is a government agency?
Not anymore, but it sure was. Different NRA from the one you know and love.
Unprecedented is too strong a word, but the Court hasn’t been striking down a lot of Commerce Clause legislation in the last 80 years or so. When the Court struck down U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) it was the first time that the Court had found a law arising under the Commerce Clause unconstitutional in 53 years, and since then the Court has struck down a few other laws based on the Commerce Clause in U.S. v. Morrison, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Gonzales v. Raich, and Jones v. U.S., and maybe some others I’m overlooking. Most of the laws struck down have been criminal statutes that the Court has found were too weakly connected to interstate commerce. The Affordable Care Act is arguably much more justifiable in terms of interstate commerce than the criminal laws that were struck down were, so if the Court struck it down it would be a pretty big deal. Arguments that Congress has overreached its power to regulate interstate commerce haven’t really been made since the New Deal, and even then when the Court struck down New Deal legislation it was generally on less restrictive grounds than congressional overreach of the bounds of the Commerce Clause, like the nondelegation doctrine.
I guess if you look at it in those terms it would be sort of unprecedented for a law this expansive - when the Court has struck down Commerce Clause legislation it has generally said “this activity is not interstate commerce” and not “this is interstate commerce but Congress does not have the power to go this far regulate commerce,” so that would be new. I’m sure the counterargument would be that the mandate of the Affordable Care Act was unprecedented as well.
I’m of the impression the Supreme Court is able to strike down a law ‘as unconstitutional’ made by elected officials as the Judicial Branch’s check on the Legislative Branch.
If it isn’t, what the hell does ‘checks and balances’ mean?
For Obama, a supposed Constitutional scholar, to make that statement is laughable. I’m pulling up my cooler and popcorn for a front row seat to the public smack-down he is likely to receive from the Court.
I voted for the man, yet I’ll crack a beer next to your cooler.
If I had to guess, he were referring to this law specifically, rather than any law.
Also, he didn’t really mean unprecedented, just that the precedent had not been practiced for eighty years. Still, using that language left him open to deserved criticism.
Sorry, double post.
Do the Republicans remember that one of their own flat out said the same thing they are claiming Obama meant by this?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m horribly mad at Obama over this, if only because it’s such a stupid mistake to make. As far as I can tell, this election is his to lose.
That’s pretty much what I was saying. It’s not completely unprecedented, but nobody’s even tried to make that particular argument to strike down Commerce Clause legislation in most of our lifetimes. If the Court struck it down not on grounds that the subject matter didn’t implicate interstate commerce but on the grounds that congressional power to regulate interstate commerce didn’t reach that far, it would be a pretty significant departure from Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last several decades.
I need Shayna to come explain why President Obama’s statement was legally, morally, socially, economically, and medically perfectly accurate. If anyone can do it, she can.