How many times have we heard some breathless-with-adoration mainstream media “journalist” tell us that Barack Obama is a “constitutional professor”?
What we actually find when examining the record is that Obama is more like a “constitutional demolition expert.”
Take a look at two recent developments to witness Obama’s contempt for our Constitution and the Separation of Powers that has kept it intact for going on 230 years:
Judge in La. holds Interior Department in contempt over offshore oil drilling moratorium
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN , Associated Press
Last update: February 2, 2011 – 8:05 PM
NEW ORLEANS – The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.
After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.
A magistrate will consider how much the companies’ attorneys should get.
An Interior Department spokeswoman wouldn’t comment. A lawyer for the companies hailed the ruling.
“We’re obviously delighted with the court’s recognition of the government’s manipulation of the judicial review process,” said Carl Rosenblum, an attorney for Hornbeck Offshore Services and other companies that sued over the first moratorium.
Realize that the Interior Department isn’t in contempt; Obama is in contempt. The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of Barry Hussein. The Interior Department is pursuing the will of the president. And the president has contempt for the court, contempt for the law and naked contempt for the Constitution.
And simultaneously there is this (story from Legal Insurrection):
Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:
“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
Here is the conclusion of the Order (emphasis mine):
“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …
In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.”
[Please click on that article for more on this story.]
“Contempt” is all over Obama on both of these major federal cases. Obama is all about contempt. Along with hypocrisy, contempt is the blood that flows through his veins.
To put it succinctly, to whatever extent Obama knows a damn thing about the Constitution, it merely makes him all the more in contempt of it, and all the more personally contemptible.
This “constitutional expert” is on the record tacitly saying, “I’m the pharaoh; I’m the emperor. And the Constitution means whatever the hell I want it to mean. And federal judges be damned.”
Barack Hussein’s contempt for our freedoms and the Constitution which guarantees those freedoms is evident in other areas, as well. And we see that this rabid intolerance for freedom characterizes the thinking of the left.
For the record, this contempt for the Constitution extends beyond Obama and contaminates his entire Democrat Party.
Even when liberals like Obama pay lip service to the Constitution, they only do so as a purely rhetorical device in order to ignore everything it stands for. Because the REAL intent of the Democrat Party is “to control the people.” Democrats believe that there is no constitutional limit on their ability to regulate the lives of the American people. And “Democrats” and “democracy” are antonyms.
Obama is making the founding fathers spin in thier graves. And they will keep spinning in their graves until Obama is finally out of the White House on his ear in disgrace.
Obama is our first Afrocentrict socialist redistributionist radical president. His vision of the Constitution is – to phrase it in his own terms when he demonized the Constitutiona and the founding fathers who wrote it – “fundamentally flawed.” And because of that fundamentally flawed thinking, Obama believes that the Government should stand in the place of God and owns everything that the people create and produce.