Quantcast

Collection of UnConstitutional Acts by Obama!

jesse 2010/03/26 22:43:09
Please list any and all unconstitutional acts committed by Obama.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Simmering Frog 2010/03/26 22:52:16 (edited)
    Simmering Frog
    +12
    1. Forcing you to buy health insurance from a private company against your will (after he excludes himself and his family from the same law).


    Gun ownership is a right but the government doesn't force me to purchase a gun. That's not a free society.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • SuperiorRepublican 2014/07/22 13:47:37
    SuperiorRepublican
    +2
    Running for US President when he was born in Kenya.
  • Ron Polland 2013/04/08 00:39:05
    Ron Polland
    +1
    Recess appointments
    Declared war on Libya
    Obamacare is unconstitional tax
    Claimed Supreme Court had no right to judge legislation (Marbury v. Madison)
    Stesak job offer to keep him from running against Democrat
    Declares DOMA unconstitutional and orders DOJ bnot to enforce it
    Releases 8,000 jailed illegal Mexican criminals inside our borders
    Forces Catholics to pay for abortions
    Orders extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens
    Murders 168 Pakistani children in secret drone war
    Gives himself total control of country in an emergency
    Granting illegal amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants
    Sues state for trying to protect is citizens from drug cartels crossing border
    Sells military weapons to drug cartels under Fast & Furious and Gunwalker - two schemes to justify depriving Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights
    Calls terrorist attack at Ft Hood "workplace violence" - refuses to give purple hearts to victims
    Reduces military strength to WWI levels. Reduces nuclear stockpile to only 800.
    illegally fired whistleblower Gerald Walpin for ID'ing kickback scheme to Obama's friend
    Lied about nature of Benghazi terrorist attack - lied about Youtube video
    Refused to send aid to Chris Stevens and watched him die in real time.
    Using Benghazi to sell weapons to Al-Qaeda (our enemy) thr...








    Recess appointments
    Declared war on Libya
    Obamacare is unconstitional tax
    Claimed Supreme Court had no right to judge legislation (Marbury v. Madison)
    Stesak job offer to keep him from running against Democrat
    Declares DOMA unconstitutional and orders DOJ bnot to enforce it
    Releases 8,000 jailed illegal Mexican criminals inside our borders
    Forces Catholics to pay for abortions
    Orders extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens
    Murders 168 Pakistani children in secret drone war
    Gives himself total control of country in an emergency
    Granting illegal amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants
    Sues state for trying to protect is citizens from drug cartels crossing border
    Sells military weapons to drug cartels under Fast & Furious and Gunwalker - two schemes to justify depriving Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights
    Calls terrorist attack at Ft Hood "workplace violence" - refuses to give purple hearts to victims
    Reduces military strength to WWI levels. Reduces nuclear stockpile to only 800.
    illegally fired whistleblower Gerald Walpin for ID'ing kickback scheme to Obama's friend
    Lied about nature of Benghazi terrorist attack - lied about Youtube video
    Refused to send aid to Chris Stevens and watched him die in real time.
    Using Benghazi to sell weapons to Al-Qaeda (our enemy) through Turkey to Syrian "rebels"
    Places members of another declared enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, in top secret intelligence and military positions
    Arms every government agency with 2 billion hollow-point bullets, inc/ 150,000 to NASA
    DHS buys 2,700 mine-proof armored vehicles
    Builds 200 internment camp lined with barbed wire
    Said in Colorado in 2008 that he wants a "civilian security force just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well-funded as our military" SAY "HELLO" TO THE DHS

    From the time he ran as an Illinois senator in 1995 until now, complained about Constitution not being a "living document" and not allowing for redistribution of wealth."

    As for proof, get off your ass and Google it yourself. There are from hundreds of thousands of references to millions.
    (more)
  • Natluerev 2013/01/17 16:42:17
  • Super_Doodles 2012/06/27 04:16:37
    Super_Doodles
    +1
    1. Faithfully execute his duties - Executive Order absolving him of his duties in immigration, as well as failing to secure the borders requiring AZ to make its controversial law
    2. Order the death of an American citizen without due process (retains this ability)
    3. Free Speech Zones - specifically for his political opposition who, in a peaceful assembly, were arrested for creating their own "free speech zone" (WTH IS A FREE SPEECH ZONE?)
    4. Undeclared war on Libya - “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
    5. Czars - report to noone but the President, and take power that was given to other, official agencies
    6. Cap and Trade
    7. The Cash for Clunkers Program
    8. TARP Programs
    9. Stimilus
    10. Independent Payment Advisory Board
    11. Dodd-Frank Bill
    12. Ignored a court order to appear
    13. Healthcare waivers (if it stands) - Nevada (Harry Reid state) is exempt, and of the 2,000+ waivers nearly 20% went to Nancy Pelosi's district (hence the total reaming of Republicans for Holder, but she's always been a b!tch)
    14. Using presidential authority to hide/coverup crimes - Fast and Furious documents as well as his background documents (these are public rec...


    1. Faithfully execute his duties - Executive Order absolving him of his duties in immigration, as well as failing to secure the borders requiring AZ to make its controversial law
    2. Order the death of an American citizen without due process (retains this ability)
    3. Free Speech Zones - specifically for his political opposition who, in a peaceful assembly, were arrested for creating their own "free speech zone" (WTH IS A FREE SPEECH ZONE?)
    4. Undeclared war on Libya - “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
    5. Czars - report to noone but the President, and take power that was given to other, official agencies
    6. Cap and Trade
    7. The Cash for Clunkers Program
    8. TARP Programs
    9. Stimilus
    10. Independent Payment Advisory Board
    11. Dodd-Frank Bill
    12. Ignored a court order to appear
    13. Healthcare waivers (if it stands) - Nevada (Harry Reid state) is exempt, and of the 2,000+ waivers nearly 20% went to Nancy Pelosi's district (hence the total reaming of Republicans for Holder, but she's always been a b!tch)
    14. Using presidential authority to hide/coverup crimes - Fast and Furious documents as well as his background documents (these are public record when he takes the oath)


    For more just search "obama's unconstitutional violations" - from 6 down came from the daily caller (2 lists of ten, I just picked a few out)
    (more)
  • Natluerev 2012/01/06 02:27:21
    Natluerev
    +8
    Obama Unconstitutional
    1. Made Recess Appointments- Article II Sec. 2 (the recess can only be a maximum 3 day recess as prescribed under Article 1 Sec. 5, can't he wait!)
    2. Declared War on Lybia w/o Congressional approval- provision for 60 days if an attack on US land or forces. Article I Sec. 8
    3. Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package-1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”
    5. GM Bailout- only congress has any authority with money
    6. ?ObamaCare?-Supreme Court is currently doing the ruling
    7. Matheson Affair- Bribery w/ judge appointments Article II Sec. 4 states he is worthy of impeachment
  • Bell 2011/11/17 06:49:26
    Bell
    +5
    In response to insurance. Car insurance cannot be compared to Obama Care (Socialized Healthcare). First, driving is a privalige. If you dont want to pay car insurance, dont drive. Second, when driving, one is not only putting themself at risk, but others at risk. The purpose of car insurance is to aid in the payment for te destruction of sombody elses propety that you have destroyed. Healthcare is for the health of individuals themselves. If one chooses not to purchase healthcare, they are not endangering anybody but themselves. It is completly unconstitutional to force somebody to pay for healthcare by the government, and if one chooses to buy private healthcare, they are fined. 20 states currently have lawsuits against the federal government deeming Obama care unconstitutional.
  • Super_D... Bell 2012/06/27 03:12:03
    Super_Doodles
    I'll have to double check the figures, but last I heard it is 26 states...
  • Annette 2011/08/15 18:11:16
    Annette
    +6
    The war in Libya with no authorization by Congress, and when they didn't agree he decided to go against his legal advisors anyway (Constitutional Lawyer that he is NOT).

    0vomit care - totally illegal to force us to buy any commodity as a citizen

    Fast and Furious illegal gun running.

    Bringing a lawsuit against AZ through the UN.

    Holding an office in the UN at that same time he is President.

    Defense of Marriage act.

    His association with the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations.

    Leaks to Hollywood of vital information regarding raid on bin Laden.

    Failure to protect our citizens on the border.

    Campaigning from the White House is illegal.

    And that is just off the top of my head. He is so illegal it is sickening!
  • jesse Annette 2011/08/16 00:40:35
    jesse
    I hope you feel better!
  • Annette jesse 2011/08/16 02:43:38
    Annette
    +2
    When he is dragged out of the White House and dealt with like a traitor should be dealt with, I will feel a lot better, thank you. You should feel the same way.
  • Faitmaker 2011/02/06 04:59:03
    Faitmaker
    +3
    Actually, it is the 10th Amendment which states that powers not delegated (granted) to the United states by the Constitution are the powers of the states AND the people. The government doesn't "claim" powers (or it isn't suppose to). States CREATED the Federal government. They existed first.

    As someone already pointed out, nobody requires "everyone" to have auto insurance. Driving is a privilege and if you want to do so, the states say you must have insurance (or you can bond yourself if you have enough money). The Fed believes the Commerce clause gives them the ability, but it does not. If they can force you to buy a product, they can force you to buy any product.

    We pay taxes because we specifically gave Congress the power to tax us (Article 1, section 8, 14th Amendment and 16th Amendment). And not everyone pays taxes, legally.

    The bottom line, as a citizen, I am a free man. By mandating that I pay for healthcare or be fined, Congress has created indentured servants and stolen the fruits of my labor. The answer is "No".
  • tiredofstupid 2010/10/31 12:18:50 (edited)
    tiredofstupid
    +2
    So out of curiosity... why isn't anyone going off on how it is unconstitutional that the government requires you have auto insurance to drive?

    I've yet to see anything that has been specifically stated as unconstitutional (give specific examples of when claims of 'national security' were abused) and cited which part or amendment to the constitution Obama has violated. Where in the constitution does it say that the government can't require you to purchase anything? In fact by requiring taxes to be paid the government is forcing you to pay for roads, schools, police/fire departments and thousands of other things.



    As far as the matter of where the president was born, it has been proved many and many times over again... please do share what has to be done for you to accept the proof that has been given? The state of Hawaii has had to deal with so many paranoid freaks requesting Obama's certificate despite it having been made available on public news outlets on multiple occasions that it's become difficult for them to deal with legitimate requests from people who actually need it done.
  • jesse tiredof... 2010/10/31 17:29:32 (edited)
    jesse
    +2
    My state requires me to have auto! And wear seatbelt but, I can ride a motorcycle with no seatbelt.
    If gov. requires you to buy something ,Like extra insurance for faggs for being high risk for aids ,it is a tax!
    There are 60 000 Border security people in homeland security , but they cant find one mexican.
    Homeland security employs 400 000.
    We have 2 million in armed forces but they wont secure the border!
    The income tax is illigal.

    Obama has a birth certificate from kenya, where is his vault birth certificate from theUSA?
  • whittier jesse 2010/11/14 20:13:51
    whittier
    +4
    Aren't you suppose to have basic spelling skills before answering blogs. Obama did not create Homeland security. I truly believe this listing demonstrates the mentality of what we are up against when it comes to speaking reality VS total and complete misconception of what is real. One million people a year die in automobiles on the planet earth. You don't think there should be mandatory insurance? Walmart spell check, 19.95, I don't know where you can buy common sense.
  • jesse whittier 2010/11/16 03:20:19
    jesse
    +1
    you are a commie dude!!!
  • Robert jesse 2010/12/19 09:17:57
    Robert
    +1
    Are you dumb? Think about that first sentence awhile. 2 The Border Patrol catches a lot of illegal immigrants (their not all Mexicans you ASS, we have more than one border as well) there is just to much area to cover and it is impossible to do so. Having our armed forces stand around all day on the border would be stupid, theres a reason why the bases are located throughout the States.
    3 Income tax is not illegal, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress the right to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense (your armed forces that you want on the border) and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    Maybe you should have stayed in school, while your at it learn how to spell as well.
  • Pete Robert 2012/02/14 04:31:22
    Pete
    +6
    Sorry Robert your wrong, do some research..............

    "The Internal Revenue Service, a Private Corporation"

    The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson
    Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and
    namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox
    had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
    Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
    Kentucky as having approved it.
    Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
    meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
    Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit
    any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
    approving the amendment.}

    The definition of "gross income," found in IRC 61 and 26 CFR1.61-1(a)
    defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived, unless
    excluded by law." IRC 61 defines gross income as "all income from whatever
    source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1)
    Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and
    similar items: (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived
    from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7)
    ...















    Sorry Robert your wrong, do some research..............

    "The Internal Revenue Service, a Private Corporation"

    The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson
    Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and
    namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox
    had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
    Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
    Kentucky as having approved it.
    Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
    meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
    Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit
    any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
    approving the amendment.}

    The definition of "gross income," found in IRC 61 and 26 CFR1.61-1(a)
    defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived, unless
    excluded by law." IRC 61 defines gross income as "all income from whatever
    source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1)
    Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and
    similar items: (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived
    from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7)
    Dividends; (8) Alimony;...(15) Income from an interest in an estate or
    trust. Tax researchers have discovered that "items" of income in IRC 61 are
    not the same as "sources" of income. CFR 1.861-1 says: "Section 861 et
    seq...and the regulations thereunder, determine the sources of income for
    purposes of the income." The specific sources listed in CFR 1.861-8(f)(1).
    They are: (1) over-all limitation to foreign tax credit; (2) international
    and foreign sales corporations; (3) non-resident alien individuals and
    foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the U. S.;
    (4)foreign base company income; and (5)a list of fifteen other operative
    section-all foreign. All this lead to the conclusion that the term "gross
    income" does not apply to the income of most citizens but to the incomes of
    nonresident aliens and U.S. citizens earning money abroad, a conclusion no
    longer very surprising after considering all the other evidence presented
    above....


    http://www.famguardian.org/Ta...
    (more)
  • Jim Lofa tiredof... 2011/01/11 18:28:28
    Jim Lofa
    +3
    Ok... I will try to address a few of these things. I'm no expert or anything, but I do have a copy of the Constitution in front of me.

    Article 8 of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to collect taxes. As does the 26th amendment.

    Auto insurance falls under state law. The constitution says that all powers not specifically claimed by the Fed are the domain of the States. (Eighth amendment) Different States have different laws. New Hampshire for example does not require liability insurance for motorcycles while other states do. The reasoning behind requiring liability insurance for drivers and vehicle owners comes down to a mater of choice. Driving is regulated by the State Governments. They put requirements on the privilege of driving. People have a choice. If they don't want to buy the insurance, they are not required to drive.

    Mandatory health insurance on the other hand is not a condition of anything.

    You are looking at the issue upside down. Going back to the eighth amendment, the constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force us into buying anything, so they can't force us to buy anything.
  • johnjay... Jim Lofa 2012/06/05 20:44:23
    johnjaymyers
    +3
    Not trying to be a knit picker here, but if you have a copy of the constitution in front of you, you should know a few things:
    There is not an Article 8, I believe you mean Article 1 section 8.
    You go on to talk about laws not covered by the Federal Government are left to the states, and mention the 8th amendment, which is about Cruel and unusual punishment, I believe you meant the 10th amendment, which does in fact say that.

    Then you go back to the 8th amendment and say that it doesn't give the government the power to force you to buy something (again cruel and unusual punishment is the 8th Amendment).

    I believe you meant "going back to Article 1 section 8".

    Not trying to knit pick, I think you are trying to make valid points, but you are so off on your references I think it deludes your points.
  • KevinBlau tiredof... 2011/02/04 16:23:39
    KevinBlau
    +5
    Mandated car insurance is as unconstitutional as mandated health insurance, you are right. The reason people don't bitch about as much is because cars are far less valuable that health. Just because most people stop protesting against it doesn't mean it's constitutional or right.

    The question is not "where does the constitution say that the government can't require you to purchase anything?" the question is "where does the constitution say that the government can?". The constitution is shaped in such a way that the powers not explicitly delegated to congress are retained by the states. This is addressed in the 10th amendment. Article I, section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. Look at the list. These are the only things the congress is allowed to spend money on. Nowhere you see a mention of retirement funds, school, transportation systems, health care, etc. What it means is that only the states are allowed to regulate those things, not the federal government.

    When reading this section carefully you might come up with some objections but I do not want to anticipate.
  • johnjay... KevinBlau 2012/06/05 20:45:47
    johnjaymyers
    +2
    The Federal government does not mandate that you buy car insurance, your state government does. Which means there is nothing unconstitutional about car insurance, unless the Federal Government decided to get involved.
  • KevinBlau tiredof... 2011/02/04 16:25:30
    KevinBlau
    +7
    (Noticed how I avoided talking about Obama in particular. This is because he is not the only one who has violated the constitution. All presidents have.)
  • DaytonM... tiredof... 2011/02/16 17:05:20
    DaytonMcNeil
    +2
    Wow, where to start with you. First of all try reading the Constitution. Second, the federal government doesn't require you to purchase auto insurance the state does. Third, the tenth amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That being said, it is not up to me to find where the Constitution doesn't allow the government to mandate that I purchase something. It is on you to find where the Constitution gives the federal gov't authority to do so. Fourth, the birth certificate Obama has shown is called a "Certificate of Live Birth" it is not a long form birth certificate that the state is required to keep. If Obama wishes to end all this all he has to do is show the long form birth certificate. Yes, it's that easy, yet he refuses to do so. You really should at least try to listen to the other side of the debate before coming on here and looking like a fool.
  • Annette tiredof... 2011/08/15 18:10:37
    Annette
    +1
    Auto insurance is not mandatory unless you own a car, and at that you have access to several options of insurers, unlike the health care fiasco.
  • Mike tiredof... 2012/02/04 17:46:34
    Mike
    +4
    The difference is that you don't HAVE buy an automobile...but you do have to breathe.

    Individual mandate requires that a private citizen enter into contract with another private entity, as a REQUIREMENT OF BREATHING.
  • Super_D... tiredof... 2012/06/19 21:31:36
    Super_Doodles
    +4
    First, a digital image of a document is far from the document itself. Second, the Presidential Records Act transferred ownership of those documents from private to public record. Note: the Hawaii original copy does not fall under these guidelines, but the supposed release version would. Also, since the document was released to the public in a public forum, that document is no longer protected by the concealment he authorized. Third, sealed documents are to meet certain requirements, in the interest of national security and foreign relations, neither of which applies to these, and superseded by the release online. Fourth, it is in the interest of the American people to release the actual long form document (one of the exceptions to concealment) for at least 2 reasons: 1) the American people have been divided on the topic and that is not conducive to national security 2) many tax dollars are going to defend this issue and that is not a justified expense. Fifth, the burden of proof is on the government to prove why it is vital to not release the document, not on the American people. We have a right to know and he does not have a right to privacy in that regard (he gave up that right when he become government as per the Presidential Records Act), especially considering the ...





    First, a digital image of a document is far from the document itself. Second, the Presidential Records Act transferred ownership of those documents from private to public record. Note: the Hawaii original copy does not fall under these guidelines, but the supposed release version would. Also, since the document was released to the public in a public forum, that document is no longer protected by the concealment he authorized. Third, sealed documents are to meet certain requirements, in the interest of national security and foreign relations, neither of which applies to these, and superseded by the release online. Fourth, it is in the interest of the American people to release the actual long form document (one of the exceptions to concealment) for at least 2 reasons: 1) the American people have been divided on the topic and that is not conducive to national security 2) many tax dollars are going to defend this issue and that is not a justified expense. Fifth, the burden of proof is on the government to prove why it is vital to not release the document, not on the American people. We have a right to know and he does not have a right to privacy in that regard (he gave up that right when he become government as per the Presidential Records Act), especially considering the release online.
    As far as your question, proof is in the paper copy of the document, not the digital image, which has been proven to be false (to borrow your phrase, many and many times over again, thus disputing that it is proof), not only by Arpaio's investigation, but by third parties (notice the plural) as well, which warrants a full investigation into the matter of direct evidence. Executive privilege does not cover protecting yourself from crime as our President is using his power of office. These third parties range anywhere from high school students to experts on the software used to display the image. It is indisputable that the image provided was faked, and an amateur amount of computer knowledge can determine that or confirm that. Bear in mind, that knowledge of the internet is not
    Also, that doesn't matter, the definition of "natural born citizen" as intended by the founding fathers is born to two American citizens, regardless of how that citizenship was attained. People have muddied that definition over the years, mostly citing Wong Kim Ark, which was written by a Supreme Court judge that was appointed by a President that did not have constitutional eligibility which would have made his appointment void had he upheld the Constitution in that regard and fell within the precedent set Minor v. Happersett:
    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
    "Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens."
    The children of naturalized parents who are under the age of 21 shall be considered citizens (some have doubted even at that time that children were even citizens being born in the limits) also, AND the children of citizenS that MIGHT be born beyond the sea or out of the LIMITS, or within jurisdiction (distinct from subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as in the 14th amendment), should be considered as natural-born citizens. The distinction of limits and jurisdictions lies in the laws....limits is territorial, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that a person is subject to ALL laws concerning said person, thus nullifying those diplomats and citizens subject to other government's laws (in our case, specifically, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. being subject to British Law grants citizenship by way of father, concluding that Jr. was a dual citizen and subject to British Law until the age of 18 or 21, whichever it was, and not meeting the subject to jurisdiction though all people, citizen or not, are subject to the law, just not ALL of them). In that 1790 law (speaker of the House, John Adams, president that signed the law, George Washington) that was referenced the Congress recognized the passage of citizenship being from the father, denying natural born status to those fathers who have never been a resident, but not denying that such a person was a citizen (minors were granted citizenship, but not natural-born status as citizens). There is a definite distinction between the two and the common misinterpretation comes from either unwillingness to research or acceptance of a misinterpretation, most commonly stemming from the fact that people are born, thus natural born citizens. That is non-conclusive and not the intention of the phrase, which was inspired by natural laws, not English Common Law, as some have purported.
    If you have questions, please ask, but don't hate or attack me because I am in disagreement with your assertion that proof has been provided in regards to the certificate, or the general assertion that by being born your are considered natural born citizens.
    (more)
  • igor 2010/09/19 13:43:05
    igor
    +1
    Join the discussion! Answer here.
  • kommon 2010/08/07 01:28:46
    kommon
    +3
    Limiting the press interfere's with freedom of the press and don't give me that "its a matter of national security" bs just because other politicians might have unflattering words about you doesn't mean you can keep the press from them with the army and its one of the first things dictators do before taking office and now blaming problems on the opposite party shows me he want a one party system some sort of chinese democracy
  • johnnyg 2010/04/06 00:17:23
    johnnyg
    +2
    Thats gonna be a long list. Just list what is constituional
  • ☆ c61☆ 2010/04/03 02:27:24
    ☆ c61☆
    +1
    Signing into law his socialist health care agenda
  • roxie 2010/04/03 02:03:45
    roxie
    Grow the F up! grow
  • jesse roxie 2010/04/03 02:07:56
  • Walt roxie 2010/08/16 02:15:20
  • bacon bits 2010/03/29 20:25:02
    bacon bits
    +2
    By forcing us to purchase health insurance.

    Bribery...what made it worse, was that it was in front of our faces!
  • pamela 2010/03/27 20:49:38
    pamela
    +3
    1.Lying about most things, under oath, on a closed bible. About a dozen Presidents before him, took oath of office on an open bible. I googled it, the pictures that is.

    2. Forcing health care upon all Americans, when most of us have good health care, then to penalize, those that still can't afford it or don't want it.

    3. Bribery though not just his American administration but foreign officials as well.

    4. Not coming up front with possible info proving his birth certificate and other college forms and transcripts.

    5. His ties with the underground racist Bill Ayers, his mentors Soros, and lying about not knowing of the speeches given by Jeremiah Wright, in a strictly racist Church.

    And that is just a start, I'm sure there is plenty more than the 5 I listed above.
  • johnnyg pamela 2010/04/06 06:11:01
    johnnyg
    +3
    It's like this guy was invisible between the ages 4 and 44, what up wit dat??!!
  • pamela johnnyg 2011/02/14 11:53:25
    pamela
    +2
    Exactly !!
  • tiredof... pamela 2011/02/13 23:28:07
    tiredofstupid
    1 What things did he lie about under oath, and hand full of specific things would be suitable since you say he lied about most things it shouldn't be hard. You realize that if the government made any decision based on if a person did or did not take an oath on any specific given text that would be unconstitutional right? Separation of church and state sound familiar? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

    2. Possibly, we'll wait for the Supreme Court to decide that one.

    3. Again, examples please? Also I don't believe it's unconstitutional to commit bribery.

    4. When was he not up front about this? Please do a search and see how easily accessible it is and how many times must it be shown. And please let us know what more you would like to see done as proof beyond what already has to make you accept it.

    5. Prove that he lied about it. I'm not a particularly religious person any more, but most people don't pay attention to the entire sermon or agree with all the views held by the person giving it. Secondly, unless he lied about it under oath, not unconstitutional.
  • johnnyg tiredof... 2011/02/15 20:37:51
    johnnyg
    +1
    you prove he did not lie
  • Natluerev tiredof... 2012/01/06 01:57:46
    Natluerev
    +3
    um... read the constitution it's unconstitutional to commit bribery.
    Article II Sec. 4- unconstitutional to bribe people
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/30 21:16:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals