XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.constitution   
   From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com   
      
   On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:10:40 -0400, Bill Steele    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 4/9/12 2:28 PM, Mason Barge wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:39:30 -0400, Ubiquitous  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> RealClearPolitics spots a very funny defense of President Obama's   
   >>> ignorant comments on constitutional law. Press secretary Jay Carney tells   
   >>> Fox News's Ed Henry they're actually evidence of superior knowledge:   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor.   
   >>> 	One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his   
   >>> 	words, the president "obviously misspoke earlier this week",   
   >>> 	quote "he didn't say what he meant and having said that in order   
   >>> 	to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it." I thought   
   >>> 	yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak.   
   >>> 	What do you make of the president's former law professor   
   >>> 	saying he did?   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president   
   >>> 	of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not   
   >>> 	believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a   
   >>> 	preposterous premise and I know you don't believe that.   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more   
   >>> 	than you and I about constitutional law.   
   >>>   
   >>> 	Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday   
   >>> 	the president was not clearly understood by some people because   
   >>> 	he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.   
   >>>   
   >>> Shorthand for what? Here's a quote from another law professor, New York   
   >>> University's Ronald Dworkin, in the New York Review of Books:   
   >>>   
   >>> 	The prospect of an overruling is frightening. American health   
   >>> 	care is an unjust and expensive shambles; only a comprehensive   
   >>> 	national program can even begin to repair it. If the Court   
   >>> 	does declare the Act unconstitutional, it will have ruled that   
   >>> 	Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most   
   >>> 	effective, efficient, fair, and politically viable remedy--not   
   >>> 	because that national remedy would violate anybody's rights,   
   >>> 	or limit anyone's liberty in ways a state government could not,   
   >>> 	or would be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in   
   >>> 	the Court's opinion the strict and arbitrary language of an   
   >>> 	antique Constitution denies our national legislature the power   
   >>> 	to enact the only politically possible national program.   
   >>>   
   >>> "The strict and arbitrary language of an antique Constitution." Could it   
   >>> be that Obama's comments were "shorthand" for this sort of contempt   
   >>> directed against the very document he is sworn to uphold?   
   >>   
   >> The enormously liberal law schools in the northeast get a lot of these   
   >> Constitutional "experts" whose primary point of view is that the Supreme   
   >> Court should act as a liberal super-legislature to counterbalance any   
   >> Republican presence in the White House or Congress.   
   >   
   >In this case he's saying just the opposoite, thaet tehe Supremes should   
   >no be tying to overthrow a liberal advance.   
      
          Advance?      Forcing 10 Billion a year of   
   product purchases to be switched to insurance   
   companies that produce nothing?   
      
          The red menace is winning, Russia has   
   gained more since 1990 than it did in 45 years   
   of military aggression.   
      
          Leftists liberals carrying the red flag.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)