President and Chief Justice Barack H. Obama?‏

This was originally sent to me by the Liberty Counsel.

There have been many disturbing questions circulated by news sources and Internet blog sites for the past several days concerning the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare’s constitutionality. Among the most concerning of those questions:

“Did President Obama directly or indirectly influence the Supreme Court’s decision?”

Our system of checks and balances has been subverted.

We know from his own statements and writings that Barack Obama believes the Supreme Court, and every other government institution for that matter, should be an agent of “change.”

In 2001, referring to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court of the 1950s and 1960s, Barack Obama told a WBEZ Chicago radio audience…

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

“It [the Constitution] says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.”

In that revealing 2001 radio interview, Barack Obama was clearly disappointed in the lack of “change” that had been effected by past Supreme Court decisions. In it, he called redistribution of wealth “political and social justice.”

Could Barack Obama have been any more critical of our foundational charter of American liberty?

In contrast to Mr. Obama’s view, here’s a fundamental fact about the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Constitution was written to protect citizens FROM government while narrowly defining the federal government’s limited powers and spreading its authority among three distinct branches.

In fact, the Founders gave us a form of government designed to protect the people’s freedom from tyrannical despots intent on overpowering their liberties!

If I may break into all of this right quick.... I think it's SO sad and upsetting that what our founding fathers fought against, Obama and his supporters are fighting to re-establish. And that is government that exists not to serve the people, but to control the people. They fought King George to free themselves from the opression of government with unlimited power. They also set us up with a form of government where three branches exist so that no one branch has more power than the other; a.k.a. goverment with checks and balances. Now, Obama's supporters are more than happy to allow him to do basically what ever he wants so long as they are taken care of. Of course, he has established that he's more than willing to subvert the other two branches in order to advance his agenda of increased government control.

Ok... getting off my soap box and back to this posting.

Barack Obama’s intimidating, condescending style of governance.

As you may recall, President Obama on several occasions has used his “bully pulpit” to chide and intimidate Supreme Court Justices.

In his 2010 State of the Union Address, he literally dressed down the court justices in front of Congress and the nation.

In the months leading up to the Court’s ObamaCare decision, he virtually threatened the Court if they were to strike the law down.

Just this week, in a campaign event in Maumee, Ohio, the President forcefully made this telling statement in his address…

“The law I passed is here to stay.”

Wait a minute, Mr. President! In America, the Legislature passes laws, not the Executive Branch!

However it came to be that the absurdly misnamed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was passed and declared to be constitutional, it remains an UNJUST LAW!