De Tocqueville foresaw Obama and the Progressive State

**Posted by Phineas

My friend Michael Ledeen has a great essay at PJMedia arguing that Obama’s shocking remarks about the Supreme Court and his apparent questioning of judicial review the other day had nothing really to do with the Constitution, since it was all just politics to him, as his walk-back the next day and Eric Holder’s essay for 5th Circuit Court of Appeals showed.

What it was really about, Michael says, was power. Power and freedom:

Power, because the president and his people think that, since they are smarter and better than the rest of us, anyone who tries to limit their power is bad, and has to be brought into line. Thus, the tough words of warning to any justice contemplating voting against Obamacare.

Freedom, because the accumulation of power in the hands of the executive branch comes at our expense, bit by bit and law by law, precisely as Alexis de Tocqueville feared.

I’ll leave you to read the rest of Ledeen’s essay; it’s worth your time. But I must swipe repeat his quote of de Tocqueville:

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

(Emphases added.)

Sound familiar?

RELATED: I know I push this a lot, folks, but Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” really does clarify so much. Remember, fascism won’t come with jackboots and rifle butts, but with a reassuring smile and a warm, comforting embrace.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

QOTD: Obama not understood on #SCOTUS because he is a “constitutional law professor”

Literally laughing out loud.  From today’s WH press briefing with Jay Carney:

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Make sure to watch video of the exchange at that same link.  Priceless.

As I posted on Twitter earlier, I’ve never been the editor of the Harvard Law Review, much less gone to a school as prestigious as Harvard.  Yet I (and many more of us “common folk”) appear to know what the role of the courts are more than our “constitutional law professor President.”  And trust me, that isn’t saying much at all!

Even more hilarity – and heavy doses of Obama administration hypocrisy / selective memory – here (bolded emphasis added by me):

President Obama struck a nerve this week when he took the unusual step of commenting on Supreme Court deliberations, saying it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” step for the justices to overturn the health-care law that stands as his signature domestic policy achievement.

But the White House was forced to defend the assertion that overturning the health-care law would be unprecedented. According to the Congressional Research Service, the court through 2010 had ruled 165 times that laws passed by Congress were unconstitutional.

Obama himself agreed with some of those decisions, including 2008’s Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled 5-4 that the Military Commissions Act’s suspension of the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees was unconstitutional.

And Wednesday, the administration was in court in Boston explaining why it thinks the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, although it was passed by bipartisan majorities and signed by a Democratic president.

Heh. “Unprecedented” indeed. ;)

You really can’t make this stuff up.


#Trayvon: @CNN cleans up “racist” Zimmerman 911 audio – they say he says “It’s f–king cold”!

This is absolutely HUGE! The national mainstream media, race pimps and liberal commentators galore have been declaring for weeks that George Zimmerman is guilty of a “vicious hate crime” because he allegedly said “f–king coons” on his 911 call before he “murdered” (their words) Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26th. CNN has cleaned up the audio clip and if you listen to it it sounds very clear that he says “It’s f–king” cold. Listen and watch (via @informedblackmn):

People may be wondering why Zimmerman would say it was “cold” in south Florida. It was rainy and in the low 60s that night, and that IS cold for south Florida.  Of course, no way to tell with 100% certainty, but it sounds conclusive to me.

MediaThis is the latest in a stream of old media/race hustler narrative-busting about George Zimmerman – and most of it has been done by New Media. There was the debunking on the issue of whether or not Zimmerman brought up race first on the 911 call. There has been debate over the misleading images of both Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that the mainstream media has used – it has been addressed. The so-called “smoking gun” video showing “no sign of injury” on George Zimmerman after his arrest has been debunked – first by Daily Caller, and then not long after by the network that irresponsibly ran the compressed video in the first place: ABC, under the clearly biased reporting of jouralist Matt Gutman. This audio analysis comes on the heels of conservative (?) blogger J. Neil Schulman doing his own audio analysis days before CNN did theirs, in which he found that Zimmerman said, “It’s f–king cold.”

This last week, as crazy as it has been, has been a victory for New Media people who have worked their a**es off on this story in hopes of getting the Old Media to correct all its errors, misreporting, deliberate misrepresentations, etc, and New Media have done it all in the name of accuracy, the public interest and for – most importantly: DUE PROCESS.