It is becoming more and more apparent that the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C., is like a petulant child if he doesn't get his way.
To say that he is audacious is an understatement. He is more of a recalcitrant individual who, by the way, takes many liberties with the facts. His latest tirade against the Supreme Court of the United States is yet another example of a ruler, not a leader.
Claiming, as he did, that if the court ruled against the health care law it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
He went on further. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," he said.
For a constitutional law professor, he must have been asleep when the class was studying the Constitution. He certainly must have never heard of Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws, as passed by Congress, as to their constitutionality.
They have stricken over 150 laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional; it would seem that the facts are on the court's side. His misstatement that the health care legislation was passed by a strong majority is yet another example of playing loose with the truth and facts.
It passed the House by seven votes, 219-212, not a very strong majority, with 34 Democrats voting against and not one Republican in favor.
This administration has hijacked the rule of law and takes action it feels like taking. Remember his statement, if Congress doesn't pass what I want then I will bypass Congress. Spoken like a true radical ruler who believes the end justifies the means.
His very argument against the "unelected" group of people is how to demonize your opponent from the president's bible, "Rules For Radicals." His years as a community organizer educated him well in the art of demagoguery, lying and personal attacks.
He got it arse backwards when he mentioned judicial activism, because that is the court making law, which is the jurisdiction of the Congress. Example is a federal court ordering a community to raise taxes for education; absolutely judicial activism, and it was done.
How could the American people have voted such an unqualified, inexperienced and left-leaning ideological individual into the highest office in the land?