THE SUPREME COURT: SYTEMATICALLY UNMAKING A KING

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that those “recess appointments” President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last year – the ones that were made when congress had not recessed, are null and void.

The vote?  9-0.  Even Obama\’s own, left-liberal, appointees were not buying.

But here\’s something that only today became aware of:  this is the 12th unanimous-verdict loss President Obama has suffered at the hands of the Supreme Court in just the past two years.

Here, via Ted Cruz\’s paper on these decisions – issued in April of last year, when the count was at 9, not 12 – is an explanation of what the rulings were and what impact they would have had:

TheObama Administration, through its Department of Justice, hasrepeatedly advocated a radicaltheory of sweeping federal power. The Administration\’s view offederal power is so extremethat, since January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimouslyrejected DOJ\’s argumentsfor more federal power nine times.

Notably,four Justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents denied theObama Administration\’soverreaches-President Obama picked two of them himself. As IlyaShapiro notedin The Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2012, “When theadministration can\’t get even a  singleone of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areasof law, that\’s a sign there\’s somethingwrong its constitutional vision.”

IfObama\’s Department of Justice were successful in its cases, thefederal government would havethe power to:

. Attach a GPS to acitizen\’s vehicle to monitor his movements, without having anycause tobelieve that person committed a crime (United States v. Jones);

. Deprive landowners ofthe right to challenge potential government fines as high as $75,000per day and eliminate their ability to have a hearing to challengethose fines (Sackettv. EPA);

. Interfere with achurch\’s selection of its own ministers (Hosanna-TaborEvangelical LutheranChurch & School v. EEOC);

. Override state lawwhenever the President desires (Arizona v. United States);

. Dramatically extendstatutes of limitations to impose penalties for acts committed decadesago (Gabelli v. SEC);

. Destroy privateproperty without paying just compensation (Arkansas Fish &Game Commissionv. United States);

. Impose double incometaxation (PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue);

. Limit a propertyowner\’s constitutional defenses (Horne v. USDA); and

. Drastically expandfederal criminal law (Sekhar v. United States).

Thearguments advanced in these cases demonstrate an astonishing view offederal power on behalfof the Obama Administration, worthy of further examination.

Ifthe Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal governmentwould be able to electronicallytrack all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictatewho churches chooseas ministers, displace state laws based on the President\’s whims,bring debilitating lawsuits againstindividuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy aperson\’s private propertywithout just compensation.

Were you aware that Obama & Co. had been hit with such a voluminous list of USSC comeuppances?  I know I wasn\’t, and I read a ton of news from all sources, left to right, every day.

If you also were not – and I\’m betting that\’s the case – you might, at this point, be  asking yourself why?  Why have mainstream media ignored the fact that, in a dozen different cases over just a two year period (on average, about once every couple of months), the United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled the Obama administration exceeded its constitutional authority.

But I bet we both know the answer.

Suppose this were not President Barack Obama.  Suppose it were, say, President George Bush.   And time after time – a dozen times in just two years – his administration attempted to override the constitution so egregiously that every justice, from left to right, ruled that he did so:

-Do you think these same media would be reporting it? 

-Do you think they would be reporting that Bush was acting as if he were not President, but King instead? 

-Do you think they would be condemning him in the strongest possible terms, and worrying out loud about that he was an self-proclaimed Imperial President, attempting to become dictator? 

Is there any doubt whatsoever?

Yet not one peep when Barack Obama and his people do exactly that.

I use the term “Accomplice Media” a lot in here, and this is why.  Shame on them all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *