Is Obama threatening the Supreme Court?

President Obama offered some additional commentary today regarding his earlier comments that the Supreme Court, as unelected people, do not have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. His words today seemed to be a bit of backpedaling after yesterday's comments. They were softened to say that the court has traditionally given deference to the legislature in matters of national economic concern. His comments on Monday were stronger than that and almost a challenge to the Supreme Court.

Apparently Obama hasn't studied much history because the court has overturned many unconstitutional laws in the past. They overturned Jim Crow laws, forced desegregation of schools, enforced Miranda rights. He said that the Obamacare law was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress. It passed in the House by 219-212. That doesn't seem very overwhelming to me. Even if it had passed unanimously, that doesn't make it constitutional. We live in a constitutional republic not a democracy which means if a law violates our rights and the constitution it is null and void. Here's a hypothetical. Suppose Congress unanimously passed a law sending all blacks back into slavery. According to Obama's standard of it being an overwhelming majority, the Supreme Court should uphold the law. That would be a violation of their rights and should absolutely be overturned however. Obama has spent his term as president acting more and more like a dictator. Who knows what he will try push through when he no longer has to worry about reelection whether that's this November or in four more years.

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA

The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in a case involving an Idaho couple trying to build a house on their land. The short version of the story (long version here) is that they had permits from the county to build the house. A county owned ditch was clogged with trees and backing water up on their property. They got permission from the county to clear the ditch and the water went away. The EPA prosecuted the husband in criminal court for destroying a wetland and he was found not guilty by a jury. After the EPA lost in criminal court, they came after him civilly with a threat of fines if he didn't restore the land to its state prior to him clearing the blockage caused by the county. The family tried to get a hearing with the EPA but were told that individuals could not appeal compliance orders. They were also told they couldn't file a lawsuit until the EPA tried to enforce the compliance order and the fines would continue to grow. Once the enforcement order was filed, they could sue. The fines could have been in the millions by then. The suit they won was basically about having the right to sue the EPA about whether the land was actually a wetland. They could still lose that lawsuit.

This case is incomprehensible to me. How can a government agency force its will on the people this way? Their original case makes no sense by itself. But to then follow that up by not giving the people a chance to resolve the situation without incurring untold thousands or more in fines is nothing but regulatory tyranny. The countless laws passed by Congress are multiplied and magnified by the regulations imposed by the federal bureaucracy. People governed by this many laws and regulations are no longer free even if they think they are.