Foreclosure Defense Florida

The Justice Dept. To The President: "Come Explain Yourself"….Constitutional Crisis?

The headline in today’s Wall Street Journal really troubled me, “President Warns Supreme Court”.
Guess I’m not the only person in the world who recognized the very real potential Constitutional Crisis….the President’s comments sounded like an impermissible challenge to me….the President simply must not say things like he is….it is a violation of fundamental Constitutional principles….and it’s not just little ‘ole me saying this….
We are heading into the most dangerous of times.   We see courts across this country affirming and confirming lawlessness all across this country.   It happens every time courts let the banks slide.   It happens when courts apply a different set of rules to homeowners in foreclosure, and that happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And if courts will not fulfill their responsibilities to homeowners, what’s to stop The President from declaring all out lawlessness?   But here’s what the Federal Court asked:
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered “yes” to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was “referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect … that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress.”
“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”

6 Comments

  • I am truly appalled at the apparent downward spiral and abandonment of constitutional law, at least with respect to the Executive Branch. My God, this is elementary school stuff – not even 2nd year constitutional law. Checks and balances? Of course the judicial branch has the authority the strike down any law that is unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Eugene Villarreal says:

    5-4, 5-4, 5-4, where’s the constitutional law that serves the best interest of the people. Oh, I forgot, corporations are people without voting rights but with enough money and power to influence the court. That’s right, the court gave them that right.
    Even though I don’t agree with Obama’s mandate that everyone MUST buy health insurance, and the court should strike this down, they will vote 5-4 in favor of corporations.
    Even the President of the United States has the right to question the court when he thinks it is in the best interest of the people whether he is right or wrong. Politicians will not because they are too busy shoveling money into the accounts and allow the public to fend for themselves but come election time, they are ready to promise the public how they will fight for their rights.
    You and I have that right to speak up, but that is is next thing that will be taken away.

  • JamesM says:

    When the Supreme Court thew it’s weight around for political reasons and eviscerated many years of electoral campaign regulation which prior courts had upheld, I think Obama and the nation was right on calling them on it.
    Obama’s new warning that they should be more careful and circumspect before considering eviscerating the health care law seems fundamentally reasonable and sound.
    The courts are the third branch of government, a government of the people by the people, not of the corporations for the corporations.
    There is no constitutional crises caused by one branch of government explaining its position to the other. Either publicly or in briefs.
    There are real things to worry about with regard to constitutional limits on power, like indefinite detention and spying on US citizens. That Obama expressed an opinion on the court is not one of them.
    The anti Obama indoctrination of the radical right wing is stating to eat your brain. Turn off the Fox noise and stop reading the Murdoch owned publications.

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Don’t forget the legislative branch in which the Senate voted 86-13 in favor of the NDAA of 2012, the house had 6 no votes against HR 347 to restrict protests and just passed the JOBS Act (nothing to do with jobs, but permits financial fraud to continue 380-41. Obama has signed the NDAA of 2012 into law and the anti-protest bill into law. SCOTUS just upheld strip searches of “detainees” but I believe that rehearing will be sought because the court seemed to think there was no alternative to placing the unlawfully arrested “detainee” in the general jail population. No justice was yet willing to rule that persons “detained” for minor offenses could be strip searched before they were taken before a magistrate. On re-hearing, if the matter is pursued, the issue will be clarified that the “detainee” in the case was arrested on a civil fine. It is pretty scary that the word detainee has replaced the previous word “arrestee” in a SCOTUS decision. “Arrestee” is an awkward word, but “detainee” suggests something far worse in view of the NDAA of 2012. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, et al. US Supreme Court Case No. 10-945, decided April 2, 2012.

  • aa says:

    dear kathleen – agreed, the judicial branch has the authority, but most importantly, when presented with any constitutional case, they have the “obligation” to uphold the constitution.

  • Nathanael says:

    The lawlessness started when the Supreme Court of the United States openly stole a Presidential election on the flimsiest of pretexts.
    It’s over for the legitimacy of the federal government; the Supreme Court is clearly just as corrupt and eager to violate the Constitution, but we all know the President is casually ignoring the laws and Constitution as well, just like the previous President. And Congress has shown no interest in fixing either of these problems, which implicates it, too.
    It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Leave a Reply