Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’
“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.”
That was President Obama earlier today, talking about the legal challenge to Obamacare the court heard last week — and demonstrating once again he doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the meaning of “unprecedented.”
After all, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count citing the Government Printing Office, the court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002, which works out to one about every 16 months. Which strikes me as “precedented.”
Or perhaps the operative word in Obama’s was “strong,” and only laws passed by “weak” majorities are worthy of being overturned? I would not grant that the size of the congressional majority necessarily speaks to a law’s constitutionality. But even if that were so, Obamacare hardly passes “unprecedented” muster. It passed in the House by a vote of 219-212 — that’s 50.8 percent of votes cast in favor to 49.2 percent against — and in the Senate by a more comfortable 60-39 (although the votes on the controversial reconciliation bill that enabled the two chambers to come together on a common text passed only 220-211 and 56-43, respectively).
Now, let’s look at a relevant law the Supreme Court previously overturned — the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, voided in the United States v. Lopez decision in 1995 (which also concerned the Commerce Clause and which was cited by the plaintiffs in their challenge to Obamacare). That act was part of the broader Crime Control Act of 1990, which was so strongly supported that it passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House by a vote of 313-1.
Again, “precedented.” Let’s not even get into “extraordinary.”
In case you’ve forgotten: This man once taught constitutional law at an elite university. Yet, when it suits him better, he chooses to ignore some of the most basic elements of the three-branch system of government said Constitution established.
As for one of the other main elements of his statement 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.
I would respectfully submit that the president has either not heard or not understood the actual criticisms leveled by these “conservative commentators.” I wonder: Can our commenters, regardless of ideological leaning, do any better in identifying what “the biggest problem on the bench” was said to be?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
252 comments Add your comment
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
11:41 pm
True. However, speculation and commodity markets are based on future demand.
ld
April 2nd, 2012
11:52 pm
Perhaps you missed his point: O believes himself so important that overturning his signature legislation would actually be unprecedented?
Isn’t it more likely that they would just gut the bill by rejecting the mandate?
Wouldn’t that make it cost prohibitive?
Will the GOP–as soon as they have the clout to do so–rip out the Board that is supposed to keep the cost of premiums and healthcare in check?
Will the insurance companies then run the price up to the max?
Will the GOP at the earliest opportunity begin to work to dismantle any/all gov’t subsidies for premiums as soon as they have the clout?
Seems destined to either self-destruct or be destroyed–but not before costing consumers a great deal of money.
rd
April 3rd, 2012
12:35 am
ld
April 2nd, 2012
11:52 pm
Seems destined to either self-destruct or be destroyed–but not before costing consumers a great deal of money.
Would this be the same way that U.S. bankruptcies (of which 60% are caused by medical bills) result in higher medical treatment and insurance premium costs for the rest of us?
Get Real
April 3rd, 2012
1:07 am
I heard what Obama said today and he was ill served to make any comments whatsoever. If his common sense could not override his ego and he just had to speak, then he should have thought through it a little more as it did not come off well at all.
Truth Teller
April 3rd, 2012
1:23 am
I am a big Obama fan, but I must compliment you on this article is it is absolutely correct. I cannot believe that Obama actually said it. I was laying in bed screaming when I heard it on the news. He really should be ashamed of himself for this one. You did a fantastic job of calling him on it. Conservative or not, you TOTALLY nailed this!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
April 3rd, 2012
5:49 am
Balance determines the price.
Wouldn’t expect you to know that though. Poor thing.
———-
Hmm…so if we drill more and demand goes down, are gas prices higher or lower than they would be without the extra supply?
And if we drill more and demand goes up, Balance determines the price.
Wouldn’t expect you to know that though. Poor thing.
———-
Hmm…so if we drill more and demand goes down, are gas prices higher or lower than they would be without the extra supply?
And if we drill more and demand goes up, are gas prices higher or than they would be without the extra supply?
Thanks for the economics lesson, perfesser. More drilling always lowers prices.
Chris Sanchez
April 3rd, 2012
6:01 am
Kyle: I don’t always agree with your views but you are spot on this time!
Joel Edge
April 3rd, 2012
6:20 am
Good article, Kyle.
GT
April 3rd, 2012
7:20 am
“unprecedented” in this case is the political interpretation of the law as opposed to the academic interpretation. The south has always been a crusader of the emotional overrides the moral and legal. This very paper stood up against the rising tide of mob rule and now the boat has been swamped, the ground lost, the clock set back. The constitution, like the Bible, is a convenient tool down here. At any turn it may be discarded for political and popular causes, we just didn’t have newspapers endorsing this low bar of democracy.
elgrunir
April 3rd, 2012
7:20 am
@ Kyle:
“(Also, this gem: ‘I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.’ Circular logic much?)”
I don’t see this as circular logic; I see it as having confidence that the SCOTUS willl do the right thing. Just my opinion.
@@
April 3rd, 2012
7:49 am
Does he know what unpresidential means?
JV
April 3rd, 2012
7:52 am
By now there are numerous TV and web news stories and comments all over the internet. The vast majority of comments are negative towards the president. Thanks Kyle for bringing it up here.
GT
April 3rd, 2012
8:08 am
Pigs can fly, God didn’t make little green apples, read my lips, and thanks you Kyle for adding to that list.
JohnnyReb
April 3rd, 2012
8:12 am
Why can’t the Left see that Obama is a divider? He is not a leader; he is not Presidential. He is not trustworthy. He ignores the oath of office and duty to all citizens. A person worthy of the office of POTUS would never have sanctioned the passage of the Affordable Care Act as it occurred. A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional. And certainly a leader of all American would not attempt to further divide the country by making public comments as Obama did yesterday. And, the Left is proud of this guy? That in itself speaks volumes of the party of causes.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:14 am
My 14-year-old has brain cancer. Without Obamacare, he would have already exceeded his lifetime insurance limit
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/my_sons_healthcare_battle/
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:16 am
I’m sick, and I will be for the rest of my life. Knowing I won’t be denied the insurance I need matters
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/why_i_need_obamacare/singleton/
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:17 am
A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.
Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:20 am
“Q1 of 2012 best quarter for stocks since 1998. First quarter stock market performance. (Since Bill Clinton was in office….)”
Really……attributing that to this President?
Stocks went back up because they went down on fear, not financials.
JohnnyReb
April 3rd, 2012
8:22 am
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:17 am
A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.
Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?
__________________
Probably not or it would be in the news. MA is a Commonwealth; that in itself makes me believe there is nothing in their constitution to prevent it. But that’s a guess.
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:24 am
“However, speculation and commodity markets are based on future demand.”
That would be “speculated” future demand…….the whole equation is speculation…….
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
8:25 am
“Does he know what unpresidential means?”
___________________________________________
If not, all he has to do is look it up in the dictionary and see W’s picture. And Romney’s. And Ron Paul’s. And Newt Gingrich’s. And Santorum’s (just don’t google that one).
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:31 am
Why not MA?
May see it if the ACA falls. But a big difference lies in power to enact. Depends on how the SC interprets the commerce clause. Can Congress create commerce in order to regulate it, or is that a function of the States?
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:34 am
“Presidential” is staying out of the Trayvon Martin circus………and not commenting on the Cambridge Police incident until after the facts are known…….and NOT getting into the middle of the Sandra Fluke fiasco………all cases that do not warrant Presidential opinion until after all the facts are known.
tiredofIT
April 3rd, 2012
8:35 am
“By now there are numerous TV and web news stories and comments all over the internet. The vast majority of comments are negative towards the president”. Damm liberal media!
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
8:44 am
“Presidential” is pulling a publicity stunt like landing on an aircraft carrier and making a speech in a flightsuit in front of a “mission accomplished” banner.
jconservative
April 3rd, 2012
8:46 am
Mystery solved:
In the oral arguments Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked the Solitcitor General Verrilli the following question:
“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”
Note Kennedy’s use of the word “unprecedented”. Yet I am sure Kennedy as heard of Medicare and Medicaid and the Reagan act requiring all hospitals to treat all comers regardless of their ability to pay.
Kyle is correct, the word “unprecedented” is getting tossed around like if, and or but.
Cosby
April 3rd, 2012
8:46 am
Oh, the annoited one bashed the supreme court – again – to get waht he wants. One needs to guess if he was tipped off by Kagan, his insode justice about how the court really feels. but, wait,m should she not have excused herslef, after all, she advised Obama on the law…of course she does not have ethics enough to do that. Obama is bashing anyone who gets in his way..almost as if he were elected King!
carlosgvv
April 3rd, 2012
8:49 am
Kyle – 6:01, 6:02
Birthers have nothing to go on but their paranoia. Those of us who distrust our State Government are dealing with politicians who, almost on a daily basis, make no attempt to hide how corrupt they are.
As for Rivkin and Cavey, Georgia is one of those 26 states. Do we have their final bill yet?
As for those “pro bono” lawyers, do you really think lawyers certified to argue before The Supreme Court are going to work for free? I assure you, one way or the other, they will be paid. I know you are not this naive, so I guess you’re just being a good Republican on this.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:50 am
“Presidential” is staying out of the Trayvon Martin circus
If he had read from a prepared statement, then yes, that would be inappropriate. Instead, what he did was, in response to a reporters question, send out a heartfelt condolence to the family.
ohhhh, so unpresidential.
Tommy Maddox
April 3rd, 2012
8:58 am
“Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?”
Nope; it was passed by an overwhelmingly liberal electorate/legislature and signed into law by the Governor. BUT, it was the act of a State making a decision for itself under the concept of Federalism. If a power is not conferred upon the Federal Government via the Constitution, then that “power” [whatever that might be] is left to the will of the State.
The Federal Government making everybody purchase something nationwide is not something that is enumerated under the Constitution.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:00 am
“Instead, what he did was, in response to a reporters question, send out a heartfelt condolence to the family.”
You wish that’s all he did…….he personalized the situation without having the facts. Think he would say “Trayvon would look just like my son” (prarphrase) if the facts were to indicate that Martin was not as innocent as we are lead to believe?
Presidential would have been to mention how tragic the situation is and then to call for calm until all the facts are known…………..shows his inexperience.
Much like saying “the police acted stupidly” when all he had was the media version……….
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:04 am
Linda @ 7:12: “One-fourth (15) of the Democratic senators who voted for it were bribed, including those from Neb., LA, Mich., Conn., Ver., PA, NY, Fla., OR, Mont., ND, SD, Utah, Wy. & Iowa.”
Linda, in your role as a moral, law abiding American, I urge to continue withholding from law enforcement authorities the compelling evidence of bribery you have assembled that would, in one stroke, convict 15 United States senators of corruption.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:05 am
““Presidential” is pulling a publicity stunt like landing on an aircraft carrier and making a speech in a flightsuit in front of a “mission accomplished” banner.”
Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??
So, we have the Little Suzy was a bad girl, so it is ok for Little Johnny to be bad also syndrome.
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:09 am
md@ 8:12:
“Stocks went back up because they went down on fear, not financials.”
I know what you mean. Many people were frightened during W’s presidency.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:09 am
“As for those “pro bono” lawyers, do you really think lawyers certified to argue before The Supreme Court are going to work for free?”
Publicity also has a cost…….”pro bono” in a high profile case saves the company mega bucks when it comes to advertising/marketing.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:11 am
“I know what you mean. Many people were frightened during W’s presidency.”
Yep….and it was those very same people that more than likely contributed to what they were frightened about. That happens when folks spend what they don’t have………
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:14 am
md @ 9:05:
“Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??”
Consistently works for Linda. I believe it’s called the “sos your old man” defense.
Don't Tread
April 3rd, 2012
9:23 am
Obama – the epitome of arrogance. The sooner he goes, the better – he begins to sound more and more like a dictator as time passes.
#occupy my desk...
April 3rd, 2012
9:45 am
Those pesky checks & balances…
ragnar danneskjold
April 3rd, 2012
9:56 am
My elderly mother detected a blastoma brain cancer in late November, or more accurately my father detected it in my mother. Fortunately there were no government advisory panels in place, rendering judgment on the treatment for a senior with such a grim prognosis. She had immediate surgery, followed by chemo and radiation. Too early to proclaim victory, of course, but her last two scans were cancer-free. She has lost only 10 pounds on the continuing chemo, maybe that was mostly her hair. Only continuing adverse effect is “chemo fog.”
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
10:23 am
Ragnar, is she now swimming in medical bills?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
10:23 am
James Murdoch stepping down? Conservatives with ethics issues, you don’t say…
Halfrack
April 3rd, 2012
10:25 am
Obummer has been given a sneak preview of the Courts Ruling. Liberal always think they can do no wrong. An activist Judge is one who rules different than the Constitution. If Judges rule according to the Constitution, they are doing their duty and job. Obummer is the most arrogant President we have had. Selah.
ragnar danneskjold
April 3rd, 2012
10:25 am
Dear Finn @ 10:23, not yet. Secondary insurance should cover all that medicare does not.
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
10:29 am
“Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??”
_____________________________________________
Not at all. The examples of unpresidential actions you provided did not qualify as such. I merely provided you with a more definitive example. If President Obama were to pull such a stunt in declaring hostilities over in Afghanistan, I would be equally critical.
hryder
April 3rd, 2012
10:30 am
Difficult how some people are incapable of comprehending commonly accepted definitions of words or offer a twisted/convoluted definition that would be graded incorrect in almost any classroom. Allow any normal IQ person to define words and he/she is never incorrect, Bill Clinton’s definition of sexual activity an example. Liberals seem to be totally stunned that the Constitution, etc., do not indicate that people are to be provided basics and comforts of life with funds confiscated from others and will say it is the humane thing to do. If it is, Why do these same people itemize on tax returns? Why do these people NOT spend their personal funds instead of attempting to spend tax monies of all tax payers on liberals’ schemes? The current President is wealthy, itemizes, lives and travels at tax payer expense on vacation with adequate less expensive government owned vacation sites are available at much less expense. What he does is talk a good game(buying votes) but his actions indicate he does not truely believe that which he espouses. Our country is to provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment. The liberal leaning family and friends of mine when informed of spending their funds for their social agendas, following years of their requests, have not spent their monies out or requested me to do so more than twice since told the above. Remember: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment. VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENT ELECTED OFFICE HOLDERS IN NOVEMBER.
Dusty
April 3rd, 2012
10:41 am
Ragnar,
Sorry to hear about your mother’s condition. The prognosis sounds good. May her future be bright.
@@
April 3rd, 2012
10:42 am
Looks like Obama is following the advice of Rep. Clyburn:
The U.S. Constitution mandates me to earmark, and if I’m are going to earmark, why not help a brother out…a nephew…son or a friend, Clyburn….THAT Clyburn!!??!!
Redistributing wealth among his family and friends. What’s not to admire?
schnirt
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
11:07 am
Oh, and to The Truth (whose comments aren’t being published): “Too much truth”? No, too much use a couple of months ago of vulgarities misspelled to get around our filters. People who do that tend not to get second chances soon, if ever, on this website.
Feeders Links March 29th- April 2 | bisquitsoftruth
April 3rd, 2012
11:22 am
[...] Obama’s Unprecedented Definition of “Unprecedented” CFHeather [...]