The Fate of Our Nation is in the Hands of One Man – JSCOTUS Kennedy

Over the transom, we just received these important messages below by an anonymous author:

President Barack Hussein Obama is not the first President to run afoul with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  The SCOTUS found several of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) New Deal Program policies and legislation to be unconstitutional.  Thus, President FDR attempted to expand the SCOTUS in 1937.  He attempted to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement.  Under Roosevelt’s proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices.

Ostensibly, FDR made the proposal to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges.  However, the President’s actual devious purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.  This plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan,” failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.  The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937.  By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice (From Wikipedia).

After that, it was obvious that Roosevelt, more or less, got his way with the Supreme Court.  Note that by the time FDR appointed his seventh judge, the electorate had elected him to a third term.  No President of the United States (POTUS) will ever again serve a third term because of the passing of the 22^ndAmendment to the Constitution.  Not everybody thought that we should elect any president to four terms—as was FDR.  The fact remains is that the job was killing FDR by the end of his third term.  In spite of the wishes of the electorate, there was no way that he was going to survive a fourth term.  Truman had only been Vice President for less than four months when FDR passed away.

Much of the following is purely conjecture on the part of folks who probably should know better.  Obama’s remarks during the 2010 State of the Union Message (SOTUM) regarding the Court’s decision on campaign financing were both rude and incorrect.  When the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, the elected legislators have the duty to write a new law that serves the same purpose—while not violating the Constitution.

It is doubtful that the Supreme Court will “take revenge” on Obama.  Primarily, the Supreme Court can only consider those cases believed to have an impact on the law or some other important issue.  It is up to the Executive Branch (through the Justice Department) to enforce Supreme Court rulings.  The previous President (George W. Bush) enforced the rulings of the Court even when he disagreed with them.

It is everyone’s hope that the individuals appointed to the Supreme Court will act in a more responsible manner than executive or legislative branch colleagues often do.  The justices of the SCOTUS (JSCOTUS) should be some of the best legal minds in the United States.  Their job is to rule on the constitutionality of the laws and cases they hear.

While all people do not always agree with a Supreme Court decision, they also do not agree with the president or legislators either.  However, that does not mean that a person should take it upon himself to unseat a president or legislator except through a legitimate election or due process of law.  END

All we can do is hope the following is true and that change happens quickly!  Finally!  The Supreme Court is listening!  Hooray!

Our Dictator-President May Be in Deep Trouble

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.  Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run head-on with Constitutional roadblocks regarding the power of the federal government.  In the eyes of the Court, Obama certainly did not help himself when he used the venue of the State of the Union Address (SOTUA) early this year to flog publicly the justices of the SCOTUS over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the members of the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.  As it turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation stands for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Jews, Christians, cable news media, the Internet, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, small business owners, the State of Arizona, Tea Baggers, law enforcement, the military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and so on.  It is no wonder that the one swing-vote on the SCOTUS, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he does not intend to retire until “Obama is gone.”

Apparently, the Court has had enough.  The Roberts Court, in a very subtle manner, of course, has signaled that it intends to address the issues of which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.  A ruling against Obama on any of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.  However, such a thing would be long overdue.  First, there is Obamacare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  No, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance as claimed by some intellectually impaired people.

The Constitution limits the federal government, not state governments, from such things.  Furthermore, not everyone must drive; thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.  In the Obamacare world, however, no citizen can “opt out.”

Next, sources state that the Roberts Court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President of the United States (POTUS).  The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Next, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.  Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the clowns that populate this Administration.  In addition, the Court must eventually rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) suing the State of Arizona.  That, too, could send the Obama Doctrine of Open Borders to an early grave—given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

Finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder DOJ and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).  The NBPP was on film committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters to stay away from the polls.  A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the NBPP, who were on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.  This one is a biggie that could send the Administration crumbling—that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST!

Yeah, let us see if they possess the intestinal fortitude to follow through.