The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

What Did The President’s Comments About The Supreme Court’s Power To Overturn Obamacare Really Mean?

Here’s the Nonsense:  Obama’s questioning of the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn legislation as unconstitutional (specifically Obamacare) was just an error in semantics.  He certainly didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Maybe we should be asking if Obama’s statement was simply a poor use of semantics or if it was really representative of something much deeper and more disconcerting for America.

President Obama fully understands the constitutional power of each of the three branches of our government.  His words this week about the Supreme Court and their authority regarding overturning legislation may be a telltale sign of something very sinister in his views of how our government should work.

President Obama has appointed dozens of czars in various positions in his administration.  On March 31, 2008 as a candidate, Obama said, “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Conrgress at all.  And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States.”  Yet since his inauguration he’s appointed dozens of czars using his administration’s unique interpretation of executive powers thereby avoiding the need for Senate confirmation and any accountability to Congress.

One of those czars is Cass Sunstein*, the regulatory czar.  He wrote in the Yale Law Journal in 2006 that “there is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him.” Mr. Sunstein expresses distress that when presidents have interpreted the law there have been cases where the Supreme Court has overturned those interpretations.

Is it possible that someone appointed for such an influential position as that of regulatory czar may have been expressing an opinion that is now also the president’s opinion?  Is it possible that the president desires to see our system of government, with three co-equal branches, be changed to something far different with no checks and balances on the power and authority of the office of the president?



* For those who aren’t familiar with Cass Sunstein, here is some information about him:  He attended Harvard law school and then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.  He also spent time working for the federal government in the Office of Legal Affairs.  He taught at Chicago Law school beginning in 1981 and met Barack Obama there.  One of his books, The Second Bill of Rights:  FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, is where he advocates the U. S. Constitution needs to have added to it rights to healthcare, housing, and education.  He advocates the idea that government can be a “choice architect” for citizens who make poor decisions. (source: Whistleblower Magazine, November 2009)