Dictator Obama Issues New Threat To Supreme Court – Patriot Update

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat To Supreme Court – Patriot Update.

What’s at Stake as Obama Tries to Intimidate the Supreme Court

This article is long, but very informative on the history of things like this Obama did. The part about what FDR attempted with threatening the Supreme Court is informative if your not familiar with it.

This article appeared in Forbes on April 8, 2012.

President Obama’s recent attack on the Supreme Court seems to be unprecedented.

There have been cases where a president was upset about an opinion after it was issued, but not cases where a president tried to influence a decision in the making. That might be comparable to jury tampering — usually treated as a felony.

The vehemence of Obama’s attacks makes one wonder whether an ally on the Supreme Court has leaked a preliminary, confidential vote against Obamacare.

By trying to bully another branch of our government, Obama appears to be challenging our federal system itself, based as it is on a separation of powers.

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves how hard people struggled and how much they sacrificed to develop this, the most successful political system ever devised for limiting government power and protecting liberty.

The most dramatic struggles took place in England, but the fullest development occurred here in America.

The whole point of the Supreme Court is judicial review — to determine whether the legislative or executive branches exceeded limitations on power specified by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “Limitations of this kind can be preserved in no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare [as void] all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution.”

Madison shared this view: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null and void.”

Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) confirmed the principle of judicial review. It was also reported to be the first time in the Western world that judges overturned a law because it violated a Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson won the presidential election that was decided on February 17, 1801, but he wasn’t scheduled to take office until March 4, 1801. During the interim, Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 that increased the number of circuit courts and judges. Until the last minute of his term, President John Adams appointed men who became known as “Midnight Judges.” Jefferson was outraged. As soon as he was inaugurated, he began terminating many of the judges. In 1803, Federalist Samuel Chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, denounced Jefferson’s efforts. The following year, Jefferson’s allies in the House voted eight articles of impeachment, generally charging Chase with biased opinions, but the Senate voted to acquit him. Chase was the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. Since then, justices have been more careful to avoid the appearance of bias, and the prevailing view has been that impeachment is justified by legal or ethical misconduct rather than opinions.

The closest case to Obama’s situation is probably President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s effort to pack the Supreme Court.

In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act that was a hallmark of the New Deal. It empowered the president to issue executive orders authorizing industrial cartels for fixing prices, wages and output, a variety of economic fascism fashionable at the time. The following year, by a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act that provided the basis for Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace’s program to create food shortages in an effort to raise farm prices, by plowing under some 10 million acres of farmland and destroying some 6 million pigs. This law made food more costly for the three-quarters of Americans who weren’t farmers.

FDR was furious. He complained that the justices were dragging Americans back to “horse and buggy days.” He fumed, “Are the people of this country going to decide that their Federal Government shall in the future have no right under any implied power or any court-approved power to enter into a national economic problem?”

FDR didn’t take action against the Supreme Court until after his overwhelming win in the 1936 presidential election (the electoral college vote was 523 to 8). Then FDR urged Congress to take up Supreme Court “reform.” This meant giving him the power to appoint one new judge for each judge who didn’t retire at a legally mandated age — 70. There wasn’t a law requiring Supreme Court justices to retire at a particular age. If Congress passed this reform, FDR figured he could appoint a half-dozen justices to his liking, and there wouldn’t be any more successful legal challenges to the New Deal. FDR’s court reform was broadened to include lower courts with three-judge panels, because more than a hundred lower court federal judges had ruled that various New Deal measures were unconstitutional.

FDR unveiled his court reform on February 5, 1937. He started selling it in his “Fireside Chat” of March 9, 1937. Among other things, he suggested the justices were so decrepit, they couldn’t fulfill their responsibilities. FDR claimed that his aim was “to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”

Despite FDR’s popularity, most people didn’t seem to believe him. There was widespread skepticism about FDR’s claim that he was only trying to help aged justices do their job. Admirers of 81-year-old liberal justice Louis Brandeis were offended. Soon increasing numbers of New Deal supporters were expressing opposition to FDR’s plan that was derided as “court packing.” Historian Frank Freidel observed, “Indignant though many of them had been over the anti-New Deal decisions, a considerable part of the liberals viewed the court as the bulwark of American liberties. At that very time, when European dictators were stripping people of their liberties, they were especially sensitive to the danger that the United States might suffer the same malign fate.” Americans were concerned that court reform would set a precedent that might be exploited by an unscrupulous successor.

On Capitol Hill, many members of the president’s own party became alarmed by his over-reach. For them, the issue wasn’t the future of the New Deal, which is what FDR was thinking about. The issue was the importance of defending the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Virginia’s Democratic Senator Carter Glass denounced FDR’s court packing scheme as “a proposition which appears to me utterly destitute of moral sensibility and without parallel since the foundation of the Republic.” Democrats Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary and Arthur Vandenberg.

Senator Wheeler thundered: “Create now a political Court to echo the ideas of the executive and you have created a weapon which in the hands of another President could… cut down those guarantees of liberty written by the blood of your forefathers.”

The Senate had the votes to defeat FDR’s plan. “Presidential pride was sorely scorched,” recalled James Farley, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “For weeks and months afterward I found him fuming against the members of his own party he blamed for his bucket of bitterness.”

Since President Obama seemed quite agitated about the possibility that the Supreme Court might be focusing on the constitutionality of Obamacare, one wonders whether he might be more comfortable with the situation in Venezuela where President Hugo Chavez has more power. Chavez ordered the arrest of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni after she made a decision he didn’t like. Chavez reportedly had called for Afiuni to be given a 30-year prison sentence.

In Pakistan, in 2007, President Pervez Musharraf arranged to have himself elected to a second term, but the Supreme Court determined that there were irregularities. Musharraf ordered Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to resign and suspended the inconvenient Constitution.

The most disruptive attacks on an independent judiciary involve large-scale firings.

Continue reading

Federal Judge’s Request of Obama’s Comments About Supreme Court a Disgrace

Federal Judge’s Request of Obama’s Comments Abo…, posted with vodpod

Did Barack Obama Campaign Threaten Life of Chelsea Clinton to Keep Parents Silent on Obama’s Ineligibility?

When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it’s not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intrepidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected.

Watch this video with Jerome Corsi doing the interview:

Read more

UPDATED:President Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism

I just had to add this….Unprecedented step of overturning a law? Oh, gee, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, as of 2002, the Supreme Court had only struck 1,315 laws down as unconstitutional, the first in 1803.

Judge Napolitano told Neil Cavuto today, “I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism.”

Can you believe the President of the United States actually said this? What in the world? Does Obama think we’re this stupid? I guess he does..The Supreme Court would be practicing  “judicial activism” if they strike Obamacare down. Talk about ‘class warfare’, Mr President they strike stuff down because it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that’s all. …I have a news flash for Obama, he hasn’t preempted the Supreme Court on anything, except his arrongance, they voted probably last Wednesday or Thursday at the latest on Obamacare, we just won’t know what they voted until June when the opinions have been written by them and published publicly. So your a little late Mr O.  You must think Obamacare is in danger to do this and the majority of Americans hope it is in danger of being struck down.

72% of All Americans and 56% of Democrats Say Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional

President Obama preemptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act. (Say what?)

Obama was speaking at a trilateral event with the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico.(Probably setting up more of the North American Union or SPP as some call it)

Obama touted the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.”

“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 Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.

“I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard 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 passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said to the White House press.

“As I said, we are confident this will be over — this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency,” he said.(ha ha)

Read more

Supreme Court poised to strike down entire healthcare law

Reporting from Washington—

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

Read more

Supreme Court turns to key constitutional issue in health-care law

Day two at the ObamaCare oral arguments went well for Texas. ObamaCare is on life support. The Justices hammered Obama’s lawyer, repeatedly raising the concern that ObamaCare overreaches too far into our individual liberty. Justice Kennedy said: “This is unprecedented. It’s beyond what our cases allow.” He added that ObamaCare fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and individuals. Chief Justice Roberts said upholding ObamaCare would create a slippery slope that could give Congress unlimited power to force you to buy things. Justice Scalia pushed back hard against ObamaCare, suggesting that it exceeds the enumerated powers given to Congress under the constitution. Today we are closer to the end of ObamaCare.

 

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical that the Constitution gives Congress the power to compel Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, as the court completed two hours of debate Tuesday on the key component of the nation’s health-care overhaul law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, traditionally the justice most likely to side with the court’s liberals, suggested that the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act invoked a power “beyond what our cases allow” the Congress to wield in regulating interstate commerce.

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” he asked.

The arguments revealed a familiar alignment of the court. Its four liberal justices, appointed by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, supported the government’s argument. But one of the five conservatives appointed by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would be needed to uphold the act, and all at some point resisted the government’s position. Their sharp questioning raised doubts about whether the individual insurance mandate could survive the Supreme Court’s historic review.

Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would seem to hold the key to the court’s eventual decision, which likely will come near the end of the court’s term in June. But a caveat is appropriate: while the justices’ questions often foreshadow their decisions, that is not always the case, especially in cases with high stakes and constitutional questions.

Read more

Kagan Sits in Judgment of Obamacare Instead of Recusing Herself

Kagan will obviously vote in favor of Obamacare and should have recused herself because of her involvement with Obamacare before it was law. But she didn’t….what a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.

A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to its questionnaire that she would follow the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455.

On Monday, the court heard lawyers’ arguments about whether the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 prevents the court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare until after someone has had to pay a “penalty” for not buying the health-insurance mandated by the law. Kagan sat in the court as the lawyers presented their arguments and asked questions about the Anti-Injunction Act’s application to the substance of Obamacare.

At one point, Kagan told one of the lawyers that, in Obamacare, Congress had enacted a “regulatory command” to individuals to buy insurance.

Internal Department of Justice documents secured by CNSNews.com through the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate that when Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general, charged with defending his administration’s positions in federal court disputes, she personally assigned her top deputy to handle the anticipated legal challenges to Obamacare.

On May 25, 2010, a month before the Senate Judiciary Committee convened confirmation hearings on Kagan’s Supreme court nomination, CNSNews.com filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Justice seeking documents related to Kagan’s possible involvement in the Obamacare legislation or litigation and decisions she made on recusing or not recusing herself from cases as solicitor general because they might later come before her were she ever confirmed to a federal court.

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House voted to enact Obamacare, Kagan had an email exchange with Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Tribe, who at that time was working for the Obama Justice Department. DOJ did not release this email exchange to CNSNews.com until Nov. 9, 2011. In it, Kagan expressed glee that Obamacare was going to pass that day.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!!” wrote Obama’s future Supreme Court nominee. “Simply amazing.”

That same day, Associate Attorney General Perrelli sent an email to a number of top DOJ officials, including Katyal, the deputy Kagan had assigned to handle the Obamacare-related litigation. The subject line on the email was: “Health care litigation meeting.”

Perrelli told Katyal and the others there was going to be a meeting the next day at the White House to talk about the lawsuits the administration knew would be filed against the law.

Read more

Another Liberal Opinion on Healthcare Constitutionalism…

This was on Yahoo News, and I got chills reading it. Since when does a democracy demand that you have insurance so you aren’t a burden? It may be a hard thing to stomach, but it’s called the FREEDOM of choice. If SCOTUS doesn’t call this one down, it’s another treadmark on the Constitution. I cannot believe the way these people think.

Neal Katyal, who as acting US Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s flagship health reform in lower courts, has warned in an interview with AFP of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law.

Q:) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

A:) The case that’s coming before the Supreme Court which challenges Congress’s Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly a significant case. It’s rare for a president’s signature initiative to come before the Supreme Court and be challenged as unconstitutional.

Q:) The requirement for each individual to have health insurance coverage is central to the president’s reform. Can the law survive without that measure?

A:) It’s a hard thing to imagine that the law, that all of the rest of the law would survive if the individual mandate is struck down, because Congress when they passed the Affordable Care Act, said: ‘We want to get rid of discrimination against those who have pre-existing conditions to make sure that insurers are going to insure everyone at a fair cost’. And if you get rid of the provision that says everyone has to carry insurance, then you’re really effectively undoing the logic of the ban on discrimination of those with pre-existing conditions.

Q:) In what way could the individual mandate by judged “unconstitutional”?

A:) The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.

Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Q:) What are the possible outcomes?

A:) The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30.

I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone else was surprised in this case, and the court didn’t reach a standard 5-to-4 judgment with the five Republican justices — those nominated by Republican presidents on one side, and the four nominated by Democratic presidents on the other.

Q:) Why is there such visceral opposition to this law among Americans?

A:) Whenever you have landmark legislation, people are afraid of change. That’s not surprising. And this is something that is going to dramatically change insurance markets, health care markets, and you know, there’s a lot of people who can be worried about that and who, if they don’t like the law, should vote against those who voted for it. Vote against President Obama, or vote against the members of Congress. What I think is not appropriate is to take that policy debate and put it in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. If they don’t like the law, there’s an easy vote and that’s in November.

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

This is for those who made fun of Steve and I and said these panels didn’t exist. These following words are from the former President of the American Medical Association.

(LifeSiteNews.com) – Concerns over the new health care law’s system for rationing health care – famously dubbed the “death panels” by Sarah Palin – have been reinforced by a former head of the American Medical Association, who said the advisory panels “will essentially mean rationed care” for the elderly.

Former AMA President Donald Palmisano wrote in a Daily Caller column Monday that the Independent Payment Advisory Boards (IPAB), tasked with keeping Medicare expenses under control, would have little oversight as they deal with the disproportionate cost burden from seniors with greater medical needs.

“The 15 officials who will make up the board will not only be empowered to make what is expected to be billions of dollars’ worth of cuts to Medicare every year, but will be required to do so when spending exceeds targeted rates,” wrote Palmisano.

Although the panels are expected to focus on cutting payments to the doctors themselves, Palmisano said that Medicaid providers are already being sucked dry – and warned that a more brutal form of rationing, using adjustments based on “quality of life” as already practiced in Great Britain, was likely in store.

“IPAB may eventually be allowed to resort to Great Britain’s chosen rationing methods and refuse to provide certain effective treatments to patients who need them based on costs and patients’ remaining ‘quality adjusted life years.’ Though the law currently forbids IPAB from engaging in such behavior, there is little reason to believe these rules won’t be changed — or at least stretched — down the road as costs continue to balloon and political dynamics change,” he wrote.

Palmisano warned that a group of lawmakers urging full repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), instead of piecemeal attempts, may miss the opportunity to block the most dangerous parts of the law, such as IPAB.

“[I]f Congress misses what could be its last chance to eliminate IPAB — one of the most egregious aspects of the law — it will be doing a disservice to seniors who need good medical care now and in the near-term future,” wrote Palmisano.

Read Palmisano’s full column here.