Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama have distinguished
themselves lately with sensible verbiage. Come November
2012, I MAY just write myself in as a presidential
candidate; at least I can manage to be a bit more
circumspect and mindful of law and history when
speaking for publication.
Ordinarily I have favored Mr. Obama, had voted for
him, donated a tiny amount of money to his campaign,
etc. But his jejune anti-Supreme Court high-handed
high-hat "threat" proved he's no competent constitutional
scholar, his assistant professorship at the University
of Chicago notwithstanding. An unimpeachable truth:
the Supreme Court IS the court of last resort. No
president, unless and until our system is changed by
amendment under Article 5 of the Constitution, can
overrule the Supreme Court. Only a subsequent court
decision can achieve such reversals.
This is not to say that I side with/like the current
composition of the Supreme Court. These courts have
swung between uncaring right wing decisions and much
more humane judicial philosophy over the decades.
(For an eye-opening history of the court, read
The People's Court by Peter Irons, available at
Mr. Obama is hurt and concerned that his healthcare
law overhaul, due to take effect in 2014, well may be
struck down in June 2012 by the court....just in time,
very possibly, to dent his prospects for reelection.
But I must ask, how could he mandate all Americans must
purchase health insurance coverage? No, that is NOT the
same thing as requiring auto insurance--at least there,
one can decide not to own/operate a car. (Try "operating"
without a body!)
The hubris and high elation of becoming this nation's
first black president skewed his judgement, to say
nothing of his inner circle's; the exigencies of economic
catastrophe should have been the ONLY focus of Mr.
Obama's first term. Yes, the White House dealt with the
Great Recession of 2008 (which continues), but even
more effective measures might have been enacted
without the distraction of promoting the healthcare
package. If Mr. Obama wanted to help America obtain
some justice from insurance companies, he should
have proposed only one change: abolish pre-existing
conditions as coverage disqualification by the insurance
Amendments 9 and 10 don't authorize forcing millions
of people to buy anything; harking back to the Dred Scott
decision from 1857 (-?) is really reaching. Meanwhile,
the obstreperously lengthy healthcare overhaul which few
have read, fewer understand, and even fewer support, is
with us, at least 'til June.
During this presidential election season, many
major candidates should be washing out their
mouths with soap after they've extricated their
feet therefrom: free speech doesn't always betray
Exercising one's First Amendment privileges: not
always a good idea.