Constitutionally, what should be done now that the bill has passed.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
-Facebook quote-

My wife, has been going to college on line, to study for being a teacher. Now this is going to be neat, because most teachers as you know are liberal. My wife is not. So it is going to be interesting. But this week her assignment is the Constitution.

Her assignment was to do a case study on a Supreme Court decision that has been important in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution. So she did it, and I thought that it gave some great information on what can and what cannot be done when it comes to the constitution. So, here is her assignment, with her sources too.

For this case report, I have chosen Marbury vs. Madison from 1803.

The facts of the case.

The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adam’s presidency, but these last minute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act by Congress and sued for their jobs in the supreme Court.


Is Marbury, entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?


Yes; yes; and it depends. The justices held, through Marshall’s forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

“In other words, when the Constitution – the nation’s highest law – conflicts with an act by the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court power of judicial review! The decision was: 6 votes for Madison, 0 votes against.

I chose this particular case because it stands out from so many others for the fact that it was this case that firmly established the fact that the Constitution is indeed the highest law in the land. It is, or at least it should be, the basis for any and all decisions made by Congress.

However, sadly, it seems that the lawmakers of today, and those dating back 60 years or more, have forgotten this fact to the detriment of the national debt.

Our founding fathers fashioned the Constitution to guide our nation and help us from making the type of mistakes we are seeing today, that affect our country’s security and also our country’s financial liquidity and AAA status.

*Grover Cleveland, in 1887, when asked to approve and sign a bill that would give aid to farmers that were suffering through a devastating drought, had it right when he said the following:

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering, which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and the duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted to the end. That the lesson be constantly enforced that though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government, and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct, which strengthens the bond of common brotherhood.”

To conclude, “the people support the government, the government should not support the people.” Only one conclusion can be made of this statement. The people support the constitution, the constitution does not support the people.. Our lawmakers of today, and in the future, need to get a hold of this fact and bind it to their very hearts and minds. it is only by this that our country and it’s constitution is going to survive. NOT just survive, but thrive and continue to be the beacon of hope for the future and the world.

*sources: U.S. Supreme Court media Oyez
The Oyez Project:
Wise Conservatism

It seems that some of the states are getting the idea here. There have been, as of today 14 states that have filed a lawsuit against the federal government for the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Health care bill. Indiana filed today. West Virginia also has filed but has filed separately from the rest. This health care bill, according to the supreme court case of Marbury vs. Madison tells us that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It supercedes all laws, and if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, the Constitution makes it null and void… it should with this Health care fiasco that Obama has passed, over the objections of the people.

God Bless America, her troops, her allies and her people
God Bless my readers, my listeners on BTR and my viewers on You Tube….


About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Constitutionally, what should be done now that the bill has passed.

  1. Seane-Anna says:

    Tammy picked a great case to do her assignment on. The Constitution IS the HIGHEST law in the land and it should be obvious that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. Of course, if we followed the Constitution today that would mean NO Obamacare , but Dems pushed it through because they don’t give a damn about the Constitution and they think the people don’t, either. But they’re wrong! The lawsuits filed against Obamacare show that there are still people in this country who know what the Constitution says and are determined to actually govern by it. God bless those state attorney generals who are standing up for the people and our highest law! They are true patriots fighting the good fight against. The Founding Fathers would be proud of them. I know I am.
    reply from Robert: The only thing that bothers me about this whole thing, is this. This thing about the Constitution being the law of the land and superceding all laws that are repugnant to it, are null and void, is still something that seems to be lost on everyone….even the ones protesting the bill. I hope that enough people read this one that that part of it gets to be known again.

  2. Trevor says:

    “Most teachers are liberal.”
    Yes. It should be interesting for his wife. Especially if she teaches in Wisconsin.
    reply from Robert: I agree with that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s