Home » Obama News » Should Presidental interpretation “supersede” judical court rulings?

Should Presidental interpretation “supersede” judical court rulings?

Will Barrack Hussein Obama now activate his Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, in order to figure out a “Backdoor”  to overthrow our Supreme Court?

I find this statement ominous in the extreme!

“…We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.” –Barack Obama

Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON – A closely divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept away long-standing limits on campaign spending by unions and corporations.

In a much-anticipated 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority declared that the limits on so-called independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech rights. The decision means more money can be spent on federal elections, including this year’s midterm congressional elections.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission does not affect direct corporate or union contributions to candidates. Those still will be banned. Nor does it cover spending from any of the thousands of political action committees set up by special interests.

Instead, the decision frees corporations and unions to spend from their own treasuries on ads and other advocacy efforts. It does so in several ways.

The decision strikes down part of a 2002 campaign finance law, which banned direct corporate spending on “electioneering communications” within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. The decision also reverses a 1990 Supreme Court decision that had upheld a broader federal ban on corporate campaign spending.

“Were the court to uphold these restrictions, the government could repress speech by silencing certain voices,” Kennedy wrote.

Corporations and unions still will have to disclose their sponsorship of ads run close to an election.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, writing for the four dissenters, warned that the ruling would harm the political system as well as the court’s own reputation. In striking down certain corporate campaign spending limits, the court reversed its own precedents.

“The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” Stevens wrote.

Advocates and skeptics of the election spending limits agreed that the court’s 57-page majority opinion merits the term “landmark.” They disagreed sharply, though, over who will benefit.

League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski quickly warned that the ruling “will open the floodgates for oil companies like Exxon to spend vast sums of money to influence the outcome of federal elections.” More sanguine, legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute insisted that “more spending – more political communication – leads to better informed voters.”

“This case will lead to more spending, and that’s a good thing,” agreed former Federal Election Commission member Bradley Smith.

Even the decision’s release suggested history in the making. Kibitzers waited on the Supreme Court’s steps, as justices convened in a rare special session. Stevens took the unusual step of reading aloud part of his 90-page dissent from the bench.

“The court’s ruling dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions, and the narrow interests they represent … in determining who will hold public office,” Stevens wrote.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and associate justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Associate justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens in dissent….



Part of Obama response to the ruling:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.” – President Barack Obama.




Statements made by the Regulatory Czar–Cass Sunstein

‘Beliefs and commitments’ of nation’s leader should supersede judges – The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND. Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” He lamented multiple recent examples of U.S. presidents interpreting law only to have their interpretations overturned by the Supreme Court.



As I see it, Obama broke his word to McCain about accepting Public Campaign Finance because he ended up getting over $744 MILLION dollars in private donations, much of which it came from,  is STILL unaccounted for!

After McCain accepted the public Finance, he ONLY got $84 Million! Now tell me who made out like a bandit here by LYING about accepting the public financing? The end justifies the means I’d say! (SEE COMMENT Section for MORE LINKS)

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter “immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion,” that they weren’t interested in any sort of agreement. “McCain and the RNC had spent months raising and spending money for the general election, and their basic attitude was ‘You’ll catch up,'” Burton says, suggesting that the Republicans were also turning a blind eye to the activities of 527s.

In April Obama seemed to be preparing an argument to opt out, as we noted at the time.

“We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful,” Obama said at the time.

Today he said something similar, telling supporters, “Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. …You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works.”

Obama said, “I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.”

Declaring independence from a “broken system”  by breaking a promise. Obama hopes you’ll care more about the former than the latter.

– jpt

UPDATE: McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker emails: “Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama. The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people.  Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics. Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”



McCain and Obama both declined public financing in the primary contests, thus avoiding the spending limits that come attached to the money. McCain had initially applied for the money, however, and has been in a dispute with the Federal Election Commission over whether he needs commission approval to decline the primary election funds. The FEC insists that he does….”While presidential candidates have rejected public financing in primaries, no major party candidate has bypassed the system in the general election.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259863/


Judge Napalitano weighs in on the ruling.

Related Links:



Possible Related Links:










6 thoughts on “Should Presidental interpretation “supersede” judical court rulings?

  1. From the Patriot Post;
    Halls of Justice: SCOTUS Overturns Part of McCain-Feingold

    The Supreme Court of the United States overturned two precedents and struck down limits on corporate political spending in a 5-4 ruling this week, with the usual suspects in dissent. The Court found that at least part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from funding political ads leading up to an election.

    As The Wall Street Journal reports, “The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an ‘electioneering communication’ subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions.” In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion, “The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

    Additionally, of requiring that money be funneled through political action committees — those now-hated 527s — Kennedy wrote, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful.”

    Barack Obama called the decision a victory for Wall Street, Big Oil and other special interests hated by the Left, and he promised to work with Congress on a “forceful response.” That’s nothing but hypocrisy coming from the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public funds, opting instead to run solely on money from special interests.

  2. Total Cost of 2008 Presidential Campaign: About $2.4 Billion
    Presidential campaigns are expensive, but none was more expensive than the 2008 campaign. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated the cost of the 2008 presidential race at $2.4 billion, and reported that fundraising by the presidential candidates was double that of 2004. (>) By comparison, the Center put total spending on the 2004 presidential election at $1.2 billion while noting that “this figure includes a very conservative estimate of spending by advocacy groups.” (>) The Obama campaign shattered fundraising records raising a total of $744.9 million. During the primaries its biggest month was March 2008 when it brought in $55.4 million; it far surpassed that in the general election, raising over $150 million in September 2008. This record fundraising gave the Obama campaign a substantial advantage over first Hillary Clinton as the primaries stretched on and then John McCain in the general election.
    In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, instituting a system of partial public financing for presidential primary candidates and full public financing for general election candidates. Candidates who qualify and agree to abide by certain restrictions receive payments from U.S. Treasury. The federal payments come out of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is filled by the check-off on federal income tax forms. (For the record, in 2008 the Fund distributed a total of $139.4 million: $21.7 million in matching funds to eight primary candidates, $33.6 million for the two major party conventions, and $84.1 million to the McCain-Palin campaign; this compares to a total of $207.5 million distributed in 2004).


  3. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican Party on Sunday said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had not done enough to screen out illegal campaign contributions and asked U.S. election officials to look into the matter.

    Citing news reports, the Republican National Committee said Obama had accepted contributions from foreigners and taken more than the $2,300 maximum from donors who give in small increments. The Obama campaign denied the charges.

    The RNC said it will ask the Federal Election Commission to examine Obama records in detail to determine the extent of the problem.

    The Obama campaign could face fines if found guilty of violations by the FEC, but any decision would likely come after he faces Republican John McCain in the Nov. 4 presidential election.

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the McCain campaign has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions, including money from foreign nationals.

    “Our campaign has shattered fund-raising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements,” Burton said.

    “While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available to step to root-out improper contributions,” he said.

    But Republican officials said the Obama campaign had not done enough to weed out illegal donations.

    “It seems to the RNC that the Obama campaign knew they were excessive,” RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross said in a conference call. “Yet they appear to have taken no action on their own.”

    Obama opted out of the public financing system so his money totals include both the primaries and the general election. More than half of the $454 million raised by Obama has come in small increments of $200 or less.

    By contrast, one-third of McCain’s $230 million raised during the primary campaign has come in small donations. McCain is taking public funds in the general election campaign so he is limited to $84 million.

    Campaigns are not required to report small donations, and some donors appear to have given well beyond the legal limit, Newsweek magazine reported.

    Two apparently fictional donors using the names “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” gave Obama more than $11,000 in increments of $10 and $25, according to Newsweek.

    Other news accounts suggest that roughly 11,500 donors who gave a total of $34 million to the campaign may be citizens of foreign countries, who are not allowed to contribute to U.S. elections, the RNC said.

    “We see a lack of control, a lack of willingness on the part of the Obama campaign to ask relevant questions,” Cairncross said.

  4. “Not all of Obama’s support comes from the little donor he touts with increasing frequency. “Industry PACs may not give directly to his campaign, but employees of industries may do so, and many of his contributors have come from executives and their spouses,” the Wall Street Journal noted. “For example, Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries.”

  5. Pingback: America Under Attack! Sunstein’s Unconstitutional Idealogy in our Court System? « LisaInTX's Blog

Comments are closed.