« "a big lie just like Goebbels" | Main | House votes to repeal ObamaCare »

Ignorance Is No Excuse

President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent. Harvard Law School (salutatorian of his class), president of Harvard Law Review, and about a dozen years teaching Constitutional law. If there's one subject he should be intimately familiar with, it's the United States Constitution.

Which is why he, of any other president we have ever had, has no excuse for trying to pull crap like this.

A quick recap: the crux of this whole mess is a scheme called "card check." That is a way a union can get recognized among employees. If the union can collect signed pledge cards from a majority of the employees, they can skip the currently-mandatory secret ballot election that is the decisive step.

Of course, the union is forbidden from intimidating or unduly influencing the workers while collecting those pledge cards. Completely and absolutely forbidden. It would never happen. Besides, we're talking unions here. "Union thuggery" is an oxymoron.

Well, "card check" was a big topic over the past few years. The Democrats tried several times to push it into law, but never had the votes to pull it off. The unions did all they could, but "card check" remained a fantasy and not the law of the land.

The mere threat of such a measure prompted several states to take action. They started passing laws that guaranteed the right of workers to have a secret ballot when it came to unionizing.

And that's when the National Labor Relations Board stepped in. They are threatening to sue those states for passing those laws. Not because the laws conflict with federal laws, but because they conflict with a proposed federal law. Apparently once the federal government considers a law, then the matter instantly becomes a matter of federal concern and the supremacy clause kicks in.

That whole 10th Amendment thing? Forget about it. Once the government says that it is thinking of asserting a power, then that power exists. Even if the bill asserting that control fails, the fact that it was introduced at all instantly guarantees its validity.

Someone notify the Supreme Court. They've been operating for centuries assuming that they are the final arbiter of whether or not something is Constitutional. Now we know that all it takes is for Congress to propose a bill, and the matter is automatically within their bailiwick.

Hmm... that could work out rather well in some cases. The repeal of ObamaCare has passed the House, and that's better than "Card Check" ever did. So can we just deem that to have the force of law, too?

All snark aside, the real reason for this push is because Obama's best allies are the unions. They want Card Check, because unions are dying in the private sector. Currently, the majority of union members work in the public sector (and that's a rant for another time), and that number is constantly growing. They need Card Check to boost their private-sector membership.

So they pushed for it to become law. They pushed hard. And they failed.

But, apparently, that doesn't matter. As far as the NLRB (staffed with a majority of Obama appointees) is concerned, it's still binding.

I guess that's what I get for not being a professional Constitutional scholar, and just some schmuck who just reads it and thinks that Congress makes laws, the president enforces laws, and the Supreme Court interprets and judges laws. I missed that whole part where Congress considers and rejects a law, and the president has his flunkies start enforcing it anyway.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (25)

Jay BHO long and profound s... (Below threshold)

Jay BHO long and profound study of the Constitution has lead him to find it to restrictive on Federal Government powers. Just because the man studies it and is a scholar does not mean he understands or agrees with its principles.

Look Card Check will bring about redistributive change

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Obama is familiar with the ... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Obama is familiar with the constitution in the very same manner that a poacher is familiar with gutting a deer.

I'd still like to look at h... (Below threshold)

I'd still like to look at his transcripts. Screw the birth certificate - let's see his grades!

Not because the laws con... (Below threshold)

Not because the laws conflict with federal laws, but because they conflict with a proposed federal law

Jay, did you read the source article? If you had, you would know that the state laws are allegedly in violation of EXISTING federal law that allows an employer the option of recognizing a union when presented with enough union authorization cards. Employers don't have to, they can insist on a vote, but they have long had the option to skip that step and accept the union (why they would want to is a different issue).

Then there is the matter of... (Below threshold)

Then there is the matter of right to work laws that several states have on their books. These were enacted through a clause in the Taft/Hartley Act. Card Check would effectively repeal those without the states voting on them. We all know how much the unions hate right to work

The Walmart issue you cover... (Below threshold)

The Walmart issue you covered yesterday is a prime example about the ineffectiveness of unions. Even their needs. In the South we have "right to work" laws which basically opens up all business to non union as well as union contractors. Of course union contractors cannot complete with the non union contractor. Not even close. So, again, this is an end run, or attempted end run around our rights. Two more years. ww

Why would you expect the un... (Below threshold)

Why would you expect the unions to accept secret ballots? They know first hand, up close and personal, how to perpetrate voter fraud. Their problem will be when the votes exceeds the total number of workers, it will be hard for claims of disenfranchisement of non-employees to gai much traction!

Employer rights vs employee... (Below threshold)

Employer rights vs employee rights ... seems like the amendments are not reducing WORKERS rights one bit ...

Will the dead be able to vo... (Below threshold)

Will the dead be able to vote in these elections just like in Barry's campaign to enslave America?

Remember every November while juggy's around.

This isn't at all suprising... (Below threshold)

This isn't at all suprising; the lawsuits against the states to benefit the unions.

One thing Obama has been very good at is paying off his supporters. Not much else, but he is taking care of his base.

The campaign continues, leadership - not so much.

#1 "Jay BHO long and profou... (Below threshold)

#1 "Jay BHO long and profound study of the Constitution has lead him to find it to restrictive on Federal Government powers."

I wonder what kind of response you would get if one asked something like,'but Mr President, with all due respect, that is exactly one of the important intents of the Constitution'.

If he would dismiss that statement one could further ask something like, 'but Mr President, with all due respect, when you took the oath of office vowing to protect and defend the Constitution, what did you understand that to mean?' I am sure as a constitutional scholar these questions would not be difficult for him to answer.

Has anyone ever come forward describing what one of his classes on constitutional law was like? Just curious.

"President Obama, we are to... (Below threshold)

"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

No, Barry is a fucking socialist idiot. Barry's accomplishment has been to learn how to play the system to his benefit. American's first "Affirmative Action President".

DaveD, He would... (Below threshold)


He would explain it is a "living Document" that must adapt with the times. He saying it right there that the Waren court need to modify it for the purpose of Social Justice.

Rule of Law is just something to circumvent for Social Justice.
See New Black Panther Party, Arizona Law Suite , his reaction to Citizens United, etc

"professional Constituti... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

"professional Constitutional scholar"

Goddamnit, Obama is nothing of the kind. Nothing.

He was an adjunct professor who gave some lectures on the Constitution (in a move that was obviously a put-up job to buff his shockingly thin resume). That's it.

He was not a professor. "Adjunct professor," for those outside academia, is a courtesy title used in academia for guest speakers. It's kind of like "Kentucky colonel." It is bestowed on guests for several reasons:

1. It gives them a niche in the academic hierarchy. "Who is that guy?" "He's a guy who is dropping in to give a lecture." is replaced by "He's an adjunct professor." Neater and cleaner.

2. It's an ego stroke for academic wannabees who are in fact academic neverwillbees. I've seen neverwillbees gush with pleasure at being called "professor" by virtue of being adjuncts.

3. It's granted as a resume builder for those who need/want that.

Re items #2 and 3, note that adjuncts generally are not paid. Conferring a title is a cheap way of "paying" them for doing work that the real faculty otherwise might have to do.

Last, a "scholar" studies a subject and ...PUBLISHES ON IT. Obama hasn't published squat, literally nothing. He's no more a legal scholar than a guy who bags groceries.

Jay,Good post. </p... (Below threshold)


Good post.

I will offer one quibble though. Most adjunct instructors are indeed paid. Many teach at multiple universities/colleges and can earn an OK income. Most schools use adjunct for anywhere from 40% to 80% of the school's teaching load.

Just wanted to clarify that aspect.

"President Obama, we are... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

He is not. He is of modest intellectual gifts, I would say. Look at his use of language off the teleprompter. His vocabulary ("corpse-man?" good grief), imagery, and use of analogy are all pedestrian at best, the linguistic equivalent of orthopedic shoes - and this from a lawyer, a profession that selects for verbal skills.

Look also at the level of abstraction on which he operates, again when speaking extemporaneously. (Reading the teleprompter doesn't count; he doesn't speak Elizabethan English either, but would if it were programmed into the teleprompter).

All in all, I'd adjudge his intellectual acumen to be roughly that of the average college student, no higher.

Joe, thanks for the clarifi... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Joe, thanks for the clarification.

I haven't had a lot of experience with adjuncts, and out of politeness didn't ask the few I've known whether or not they were paid, but from them I'd gotten the distinct impression that they weren't paid.

So I stand corrected.

"President Obama, ... (Below threshold)
"President Obama, we are told, is exceptionally intelligent."

I keep waiting to see any actual evidence for this.

The only evidence that even pretends to be objective is that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law. And that's it. Other than that, the only evidence for Obama's intelligence is other liberals telling us that Obama is intelligent.

I didn't much care for Bill Clinton, but the dude was a Rhodes Scholar, so I give him props for that; an actual accomplishment. But Obama? Not so much.

"Union thuggery" is an oxym... (Below threshold)

"Union thuggery" is an oxymoron.

But isn't "oxymoron" the wrong choice of word? Peaceful union would be an oxymorn

Not oxymoron but rather "re... (Below threshold)

Not oxymoron but rather "redundant"

But ignorance is what the a... (Below threshold)
Thom Simmons:

But ignorance is what the author insists on

Made a pdf file of this one. This nonsense still festers in the cavities of pseudo-journalism! That "Of course, the union is forbidden from intimidating or unduly influencing the workers while collecting those pledge cards. . . . "Union thuggery" is an oxymoron," is really emotionally juniour high and even less obvious. Seen it happen on BOTH sides of the fence in 6 states, four different countries on three continents. Wake up.

Huh?... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:


Actually, the "union thugge... (Below threshold)

Actually, the "union thuggery" was sarcastic. Note the tone of the previous sentences.

And Thom, you're welcome to keep pdfs of all my articles. I don't delete entries, and any time I make significant corrections, they're noted.

And don't call me a "pseudo-journalist." I'm a blogger. I make no claims to be any kind of a journalist.


Jay Tea, we would never cal... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Jay Tea, we would never call you a journalist. There are some things that, once said, you just can't take back.

Since O is so intellectuall... (Below threshold)

Since O is so intellectually superior, and so well versed in Constitutional Law - I guess we can conclude his violation of Law is deliberate?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy