Obama defies checks and balances; intimidates the Supreme Court
Michael Roberts
Issue date: 2/2/10 Section: Opinion
After President Obama's State of the Union address last Wednesday, I had some very mixed feelings. Sure there was the taking responsibility for the deficit spending, the continued push for healthcare reform, and mention of the climate change bill that many thought dead. This was all important, but the most prominent negative feeling that I got from the speech was about President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court, and it led me to thinking of only one man: Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, more commonly referred to as simply Montesquieu.
For those not familiar with Montesquieu, he developed the theory of separation of powers, a theory that much of the western political system is based off of. In our government, this idea manifests itself through the three branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. With each branch only having certain powers, and the ability to balance the power of the other branches, one branch cannot attain enough power to truly dictate everything that happens in the country. This idea safeguards some of the things that democracy loving peoples all around the globe take for granted.
President Obama went against separation of powers last Wednesday in one of the most frightening acts of pseudo-intimidation of the Supreme Court that has ever been seen. Some right-wing commentators have said that the entire State of the Union speech was in a defiant tone; I just believe that the speaking out against the Supreme Court was.
President Obama addressed the Supreme Court's recent decision on campaign finance; a decision that got rid of restrictions on corporations for donating to campaigns. President Obama expressed how incredibly upset he was with the decision since, in his mind, it allows for special interests to control elections, or at least have much more of a say in what happens with the elections.
The problem with him bringing this up was that all of the democrats started standing up and cheering (for anyone who has watched a State of the Union address, this is not uncommon.) The makeup of the House and Senate however, led to the effect of the Supreme Court justices, who were sitting front and center for the speech, surrounded by democrats applauding the president, and by doing so, all expressing their discontent with the court's decision. Intimidation method? Possibly.
For those not familiar with Montesquieu, he developed the theory of separation of powers, a theory that much of the western political system is based off of. In our government, this idea manifests itself through the three branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. With each branch only having certain powers, and the ability to balance the power of the other branches, one branch cannot attain enough power to truly dictate everything that happens in the country. This idea safeguards some of the things that democracy loving peoples all around the globe take for granted.
President Obama went against separation of powers last Wednesday in one of the most frightening acts of pseudo-intimidation of the Supreme Court that has ever been seen. Some right-wing commentators have said that the entire State of the Union speech was in a defiant tone; I just believe that the speaking out against the Supreme Court was.
President Obama addressed the Supreme Court's recent decision on campaign finance; a decision that got rid of restrictions on corporations for donating to campaigns. President Obama expressed how incredibly upset he was with the decision since, in his mind, it allows for special interests to control elections, or at least have much more of a say in what happens with the elections.
The problem with him bringing this up was that all of the democrats started standing up and cheering (for anyone who has watched a State of the Union address, this is not uncommon.) The makeup of the House and Senate however, led to the effect of the Supreme Court justices, who were sitting front and center for the speech, surrounded by democrats applauding the president, and by doing so, all expressing their discontent with the court's decision. Intimidation method? Possibly.
Be the first to comment on this story