“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…” were the words that President Obama planned to say on January 20th before Chief Justice John Roberts botched the presidential oath of office and Mr. Obama repeated his mistake. Assuming no darker motives—that Mr. Roberts was not deliberately creating a validation for a future ruling that Mr. Obama is not America’s president—his public snafu with Mr. Obama might at least foreshadow a period of little cooperation, perhaps even blatant counteraction, between an economically interventionist Mr. Obama and a still strict-constructionist Supreme Court.
1978, the last time America saw a Democratic majority in Congress as great as it is now—nearly 60%—coincided with the first term of President Carter—also a Democrat. The 96th Congress that convened until 1980 was marked by broad productivity, passing more laws than the two Congress’ that preceded it. If the high output of bills was due to Democratic control of the legislature and the White House, then the current—111th—Congress ought to be the most productive in a long time. Nonetheless, the current federal judiciary remains much more conservative than that of 1978, suggesting that any productive period in Congress will likely be met with constitutionality rulings in the Supreme Court.
Although he never succeeded in convincing a majority in Congress to add the appropriate clauses to the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), Mr. Obama—not to mention other Democratic Senators and Representatives—supported allowing judges to rewrite mortgage contracts. As national banks fought the proposed measure by saying introducing insecurity into mortgage contracts would inevitably lead to rate hikes, some Congressional conservatives pointed out that mortgages are legal contracts and arbitrarily altering them could prove unconstitutional; a former Harvard University student in constitutional law, Mr. Obama claimed that the situation called for it; he did not address inconsistencies between his bailout plan, Treasury Secretary Paulson’s requests to get Congressional approval to spend $700 billion in stimulus with no judicial oversight, and the confines of the Constitution.
Nearly sixty-five years after leaving the White House, President Franklin Roosevelt is remembered primarily for leading America out of the Great Depression and later to victory in the Second World War. His First 100 Days in office—often alluded to by Mr. Obama—are meanwhile credited with ending bank runs and lowering national unemployment, in turn beginning to reverse the downward economic trends of the Great Depression. To a lesser extent, Mr. Roosevelt’s First 100 Days are remembered for spawning the National Recovery Act (NRA) which was later ruled unconstitutional causing Mr. Roosevelt to attempt to pass an act through Congress—allowing him to appoint five new Supreme Court Justices—which Congress killed in realizing that it grossly violated the balances of government outlined in the Constitution.
Mr. Obama would no doubt be satisfied if his name someday conjures the same populist heroism that Mr. Roosevelt’s continues to today, but Mr. Obama should note that an increasingly analytical and often critical media makes such favorable legacies increasingly less likely. Mr. Obama ought to also understand that his background in constitutional law all but obliterates ignorance as a plausible defense for endorsing bills that are in violation of the Constitution. For a first term president, Mr. Obama’s power—both in popular approval and legislative control—is possibly without precedent; the financial crisis and American recession give him greater leverage. The point is that he can’t abuse it—or rather that he can and that he probably will—but he shouldn’t. And if he does, there will be a day not so long away when, as he is forced to testify before a contentious and Republican Senate set on impeachment, he will regret it.
Sphere: Related Content
Related posts:
- Election Night Live Blogging: BARACK OBAMA TO BE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 11:30 McCain congratulates Obama at a rally in Pheonix,...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Brilliant post, David. You have an awesome ability to see the ramifications of government action well before the majority of us.
Thanks for the compliment, Matt. This is the inauguration post I was referring to in the email. If you’d like me to post it on IG, I’d of course be happy to.
[...] Lamb presents U.S. v. Barack Obama: The slippery slopes of the Constitution posted at Killer Buffalo, saying, “Obama’s popularity and the Democratic control of [...]
Yeah, why don’t you repost this on IG on Monday! thanks!
[...] "U.S. v. Barack Obama: The slipper slopes of the Constitution" Originally published: 23 January 2009 Submitted by: U.S. Common Sense Summary: Examining some of the issues that could lead President Obama and the Supreme Court to face off against each other. [...]
1. Passing legislation that is in conflict with the constitution is not an impeachable offense. If it were bush would have been impeached several years ago.
2. Only a very strict originalist or literalist view of the constitution would render the current actions unconstitutional.
3. There were never any successful constitutional challenges to the ability of the government to spend in drung the great depression. The only challenges were for specific Roosevelt policies, not the presidential power.
4. President Obama became president at a specific time on Jan. 20. The oath is a formality. Thus no one could possibly use the Justices’ flubbing as a legitimate excuse to challenge the Obama’s presidency.
I would really love for someone to explain to me, taking into account supreme court decisions, what Obama has done that you unconstitutional.
If you ever want to hear a reader’s feedback
, I rate this post for four from five. Detailed info, but I just have to go to that damn yahoo to find the missed pieces. Thank you, anyway!
Obama likes to compare himself with FDR and Lincoln—each of these leaders lead us through destructive wars. However, both were considered to be radicals in their time. The election of Lincoln and his call for troops led us into the nations worst conflict. Due to the victory of the north and his assassination he was elevated to greatness. FDR, a radical progressive, who economic policies failed had the good fortune of WWII coming along. The nation did not wish to become involved, Roosevelt on the other hand wanted to come to the aid of Britian and his like-minded socialist in the Soviet Union. The attack on Pearl Harbor gave him the excuse he needed to involve the U.S. in the war. The war pulled us out of the depression not the socialistic polices of Roosevelt. So when BHO, compares himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, it gives me pause to think. He does, indeed, have some things in common with both—radicalism, in the case of Lincoln and Progressiveism in the case of Roosevelt. I wonder if he sees himself dying in office as those two did.
Thanks for putting me on your blogroll. Mine is a young blog, but I trying to grow it.