February 4, 2011

Mark Levin: ‘Barack Obama … the Attorney General … the Secretary of HHS … Are Conducting Themselves in a Lawless Fashion’

Just listen … on Wednesday, the inarguably correct Great One, aided by flashbacks to monologues earlier in the week, laid out in detail the serious rule of law standoff the Obama administration has created:

Choice excerpts (internal links added by me):

… Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, “This is a declaratory judgment,” finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) “I don’t have to issue an injunction. The government can’t impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation.”

I said that if the administration failed to follow the law, then it was lawless. (I said that) it was violating the constitution, that this was as serious as Watergate.

… There it is on Page 75. He voided the law. It’s dust. It’s gone, until a higher court does something else.

… What will the media in our country do when a President of the United States intentionally and knowingly refuses to comply with a court order? Whether it’s civil rights in the 1960s, whether it’s anything else, does this not remind you of Watergate in a sense if the Executive Branch does not comply with this federal judge? Do we not have a constitutional crisis if the Executive Branch refuses to comply with a Judicial Branch order?

… (the Executive Branch’s) only relief is to appeal it. You must cease and desist from further attempts to implement it. But I guarantee you ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed.

… What does the Obama administration do? (It) calls the reporters together in a phone conference — this is CBS News, and I quote from CBS News — “the White House official said the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law. which is being phased in gradually. The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014. They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implement in part because the ruling does not rest on anything like a conventional constitutional analysis.”

… This (ruling) is a de facto injunction issued by a federal judge, and they cannot pretend that it hasn’t been done, and play so ruthlessly with the rule of law.

… They don’t get to enforce what they want, and ignore what they want … Either the court has the final say or it doesn’t, and if does, there’s nothing else to say.

… Now the states of Wisconsin and Florida, it appears, have decided that there’s no law for them to implement any longer. And they are in fact correct, since the last position of the law as it applies to Obamacare is that there is no law. And so the states should stop implementing this statute until there is a different ruling from a higher court. If the Obama administration wants to continue to violate the Constitution, to defy a federal judge, and play rope-a dope, then you states have no responsibility whatsoever to comply.

And you insurance companies … there is no Obamacare law officially. It’s been voided. And it is not an act of civil defiance to refuse to adhere to any aspect of it. The act of civil defiance — that is, the act of constitutional violation — are occurring on the other side.

Barack Obama today, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of HHS today, are conducting themselves in a lawless fashion. It is they, it is they who are leading opposition to the United States Constitution. … It is they who are disregarding our universal values. It is they.

So what are the state attorneys general going to do? What is Congress going to do? What are HHS and other employees carrying out illegal orders going to do? What are the insurance companies going to do?

What are we going to do?

A related post is at NewsBusters.

Share

5 Comments

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom_Blumer, MS. MS said: Mark Levin: 'Barack Obama … the Attorney General … the – BizzyBlog: Barack Obama today, the Att… http://bit.ly/esZXMH – Keep Watching! [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention BizzyBlog -- Topsy.com — February 4, 2011 @ 8:03 am

  2. It is astounding that no one else on the right or left has picked up on Mark’s important point. The only possible debate could be the definition of a “declaratory judgement” since everything follows from that key point. I’m not enough of a scholar to know the full definition, but I seriously doubt that Mark would go out on this limb without first thoroughly researching it. I hope I’m not guilty of blind faith and am being led astray.

    Of all of the talk of “high crimes and misdemeanors” of which past presidents have been accused, this action by Obama makes those pale in comparison as he tries to take over 1/6 of our economy by a lawless action.

    Comment by Dr. Rob — February 4, 2011 @ 8:29 am

  3. #2, when you look at what the judge said on Page 75 (link is to a graphic of the relevant section of that page, I don’t see that there is any other way to read it besides how Mark and Landmark Legal have read it.

    What about “the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction” does Obama, the White House, Eric Holder, or the press, not understand? Answer: They understand, and in the first three cases, appear not to care.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 4, 2011 @ 8:57 am

  4. [...] Mark Levin observed last week, at least two states are saying they will not comply with that illegal expectation: Now the states [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — February 7, 2011 @ 10:49 am

  5. [...] Levin’s take on Day 3 of the ruling is at this previous BizzyBlog post. [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — February 10, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.