creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
22 Apr 2014
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part III

Income inequality has long been one of the liberals' favorite issues. So there is nothing surprising about … Read More.

22 Apr 2014
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II

Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically … Read More.

22 Apr 2014
The High Cost of Liberalism

Liberals advocate many wonderful things. In fact, I suspect that most conservatives would prefer to live in … Read More.

Political Word Games

Comment

One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.

That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.

He replied: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!

Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history — Marbury v. Madison in 1803 — Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.

They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be "unprecedented" after two centuries of countless precedents.

In short, he is simply lying.

Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying Presidents of the United States, I prefer that they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.

But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.

He is also counting on something else — namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.

One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words.

Barack Obama is a master at that as well.

In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind "conservative commentators" that they have complained about "judicial activism" — which he redefines as the idea that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

First of all, every law that the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was "a duly constituted and passed law."

Second, the "judicial activism" that conservatives have complained about was judges making rulings based on how they felt personally about the issue at hand, rather than about what the Constitution of the United States said.

In recent years, great efforts have been made to redefine "judicial activism" in terms of judges declaring laws unconstitutional, instead of "deferring" to Congress or other government institutions.

But what is the Constitution's Bill of Rights supposed to protect the ordinary citizen from? Government institutions! If judges are to defer to the very institutions that the Bill of Rights tries to protect the citizen from, what is the point of having a Bill of Rights?

As for Supreme Court justices being unelected, that has been true since the Constitution was created. That was done deliberately, so that they could render their judgments without fear of political repercussions. If unelected Supreme Court justices are to automatically defer to elected officials, that again raises the question of why they are there at all.

Why are the taxpayers paying their salaries and housing them in an expensive marble building — just so that they can go along to get along?

It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama's lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
I was just yelling at my computer screen this afternoon, "Either the President is a f-ing doofass or a f-ing liar." You, dear sir, have stated it much more eloquently than I ever could... Thank you!
Comment: #1
Posted by: poorsinner
Tue Apr 3, 2012 5:45 PM
Re: poorsinner More eloquent perhaps but yours just feels better.
Comment: #2
Posted by: theslob
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:49 PM
"[T}he "judicial activism" that conservatives have complained about was judges making rulings based on how they felt personally about the issue at hand, rather than about what the Constitution of the United States said."

The fact that almost no liberal politicians or commentators even pretend to be able to justify Obamacare constitutionally is telling. If you ask them to do so, they'll generally try to change the subject to how great it is, or how much money it will (allegedly) save, or some other equally irrelevant point.

Studies have shown that pet ownership has beneficial health effects for humans, such as lower blood pressure. That doesn't mean Congress has the authority under the Constitution to buy everyone a puppy.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Thu Apr 5, 2012 12:59 AM
I, for one, looked at it another way. Mr. Obama's words regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning the Health care legislation seemed sincere. His words should have raised the eyebrows of any High School graduate who has passed an American History class! My thought is this, where are we as a nation headed if even Harvard Law School graduates can't get it right?

Congratulations to you Mr. Sowell for having the courage to say what must be said!
Comment: #4
Posted by: Gary M.Olson
Thu Apr 5, 2012 6:22 AM
Maybe someone can enlighten me?
I find the only other Federal statute the Supreme Court struck down after Marbury vs Madison was the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision. That's two total.
Everything else was on a State level, not Federal.
Unless you know of more, President Obama is correct.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Steve
Fri Apr 6, 2012 2:34 PM
Re: Steve

According to Answers.com:

"The list would be too long for this format. The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review. "

Of that total, 158 were federal laws, 935 were state statutes, and the remaining 222 were local ordinances.

Comment: #6
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:33 PM
Looks like Steve needs to brush up on his internet research skills as a basic search by Jeff shows that the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional federal laws is far from unprecentated.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Thetruth
Sun Apr 8, 2012 7:21 AM
Mr. Gunn thank you. Answers.Com is not a site I recognize so you've opened a door and I appreciate your help. I searched Federal Commerce Clause laws overturned by Supreme Court. I then researched Supreme Court and Dept of Justice web sites. Too much information for this old man. After throwing hands in the air, I put them down on the keyboard knowing I was opening myself to ridicule, also knowing some very knowledgeable individuals frequent this site. I count you among those folks.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Steve
Sun Apr 8, 2012 8:31 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Ben Carson
Ben CarsonUpdated 23 Apr 2014
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 23 Apr 2014
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 23 Apr 2014

12 Feb 2008 The Media and Politics

20 Jul 2010 Race Card Fraud

16 Feb 2010 Playing Freedom Cheap