Obama’s Constitutional Crisis

[CG6468]

Obama’s Constitutional Crisis

- Alan Caruba  Monday, July 2, 2012

In 1832, the threat of nullification by States that opposed tariffs on imported goods came close to bringing about a civil war. Thirty years later as cries for the abolition of slavery reached a fever pitch the War Between the States would begin.

Today, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that found that the Affordable Health Care Act—Obamacare— is constitutional and thereby the law of the land. Republican Governors are lining up to say they will not obey it.

Not only has President Obama and the Democrat Party imposed an enormously unpopular law on the nation, they have initiated a huge constitutional crisis.

Nullification is a constitutional theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void any law passed by the United States Congress which the State deems unacceptable and unconstitutional. In a debate in the late 1700s, both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) came down on the side of nullification if a State concluded that the federal government had overstepped its limits of jurisprudence.

In ruling that Obamacare cannot use the Commerce Clause as its justification, the Supreme Court kicked the Act back to Congress, ruling that it is a tax and that Congress has the right to place such taxes on the citizens of the nation. The Obama administration maintained that Obamacare was not a tax until the case was argued before the Court. It then conceded that it was.

The least troublesome response is to wait for November to remove for office every Senator and Representative who voted for Obamacare and who is up for reelection along with Obama.

The most troublesome response would reflect the crisis that occurred when Andrew Jackson was President. On December 11, 1832, Jackson issued a proclamation that he would use force to uphold the right of Congress to enact tariffs which were widely seen as a burden on the southern States. Several compromises ensued.

Oblammo's Constitutional Crisis

[Bad Dog]

Oblammo's Constitutional Crisis

Not to mention Fast-n-Furious ah...er...Gate.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeah, Jackson was a huge fan of the Constitution all right...as long as it agreed with what he wanted to do.  Obama has a bit of that in him, but thanks to Roberts, we won't be finding out if he is willing to just tell the Supreme Court to **** off when they tell him he's gone too far.

[5412]

Yeah, Jackson was a huge fan of the Constitution all right...as long as it agreed with what he wanted to do.  Obama has a bit of that in him, but thanks to Roberts, we won't be finding out if he is willing to just tell the Supreme Court to **** off when they tell him he's gone too far.

Hi,

Tanker if the voters tell BO to take a hike, think he will go quietly?

Ugly no matter how the election turns out.

Regards,

5412

[DumbAss Tanker]

I don't see how he has any other option but to pack his bags if that happens, the civil service bureaucracy (And I mean that in its technical sense, not as a slur) and the military are both far more loyal to the orderly and Constitutional transition of power than they are to Obama (Or any other President) personally. 

[docstew]

I don't see how he has any other option but to pack his bags if that happens, the civil service bureaucracy (And I mean that in its technical sense, not as a slur) and the military are both far more loyal to the orderly and Constitutional transition of power than they are to Obama (Or any other President) personally. 

Agree on the military, but the civil service has been very empowered by O, they might want to let him hang around.

[JohnnyReb]

Agree on the military, but the civil service has been very empowered by O, they might want to let him hang around.

I don't know wheather to say that's the key word or call you racist.....

Racist....for those times when you don't know what to say.

[zeitgeist]

Yeah, Jackson was a huge fan of the Constitution all right...as long as it agreed with what he wanted to do.  Obama has a bit of that in him, but thanks to Roberts, we won't be finding out if he is willing to just tell the Supreme Court to **** off when they tell him he's gone too far.

And let me just add the following:

It is March, 1834 and Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, is in danger of being impeached by the House of Representatives for assuming powers not conferred to the chief executive by the Constitution.  If convicted by the Senate, Jackson will be forced to resign and his vice president, Martin Van Buren, will assume the presidency.

The House will debate the following THREE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:

     1.  President Jackson has violated the separation
         of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of
         the United States.

     2.  President Jackson violated states' rights in his
         dealings with South Carolina in the nullification
         crisis.

     3.  President Jackson violated laws, treaties, and
         Supreme Court orders in his dealings with
         Native Americans.

And the House should be doing the exact same thing now.  Why wait until November? 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Agree on the military, but the civil service has been very empowered by O, they might want to let him hang around.

Don't confuse the career civil servants with the political appointees, the career people are as invested in the Constitution and rule of law as the military is.  There are of course a handful of radical dipshits of every stripe running below the radar in both institutions.

[Penrod]

I have a question. Did the Obama care bill start in the senate? If so dont all monetary bills have to start in the house?