Does Barrack Obama respect/honor the constitution of the United States of America ?
CAPISCE
2013/02/23 17:31:58
|
|
|||||
|
132 votes
|
|
87% | ||
|
19 votes
|
|
13% | ||
Top Opinion
-
pjobrien 2013/02/23 18:08:56
of the Democratic (or I should say the Autocratic) party. Obama, along
with most of rest of that Democratic (Autocratic) party, hardly gives a
rat's ass about the US Constitution. The past four years demonstrated
that, and it's a pretty fair wager that the next fours will show the same.
we are allowing a stupid people to represent our values....and it shows more everyday
No, I'm not worried about the 2nd Amendment. There has probably been more guns sold during the last 4 years then probably any other modern presidential term (I'm guessing).
BUT he has totally screwed up on the 18th Amendment because people are freely drinking alcohol across the country....wait, that's right, that Amendment to the Constitution was repealed.
Areas he violated: http://www.archives.gov/exhib... (transcript of the constitution)
Areas he upholds: He didn't mess up the oath of office the second time.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. - HOO
Obamacare (that is intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce). He upheld it by calling it a tax in court, and an insurance program on the campaign trail and appointing two justices that have no regard for the constitution.
NDAA: due process be damned.
Bombing of Libya: president's can't declare war, yet a recent spate of president got away with it. We should make an example of one.
Telling the fed to print money and lower interest rates so the government can pay its debt: i don't see any of that in article one section 8, barry.
Stimulus in bailouts: Where is the authorization to take my money and give it to someone else to promote growth? It does not promote growth, and why aren't i getting the money?
Enforcing federal marijuana laws: they are unconstitutional.
Executing U.S. citizens abroad: due process be damned.
Obama Only fallows the constitution when it is convenient, and ignores it when it is not.
You misunderstand the word constitutional. Constitutional means the constitution authorizes, and does not prohibit something. What you are talking about is the fact we allow 9 people to decide what it means, and the usually drop the ball because they are appointed by enemies of the constitution. So by constitutional, you mean allowing politicians to get away with stuff, we are in agreement.
No courts do not decide what is constitutional, they decide what they allow the government to get away with. The same judges that judge the laws are appointed by The same wastes of life that make the laws. How on earth do you think FDR got all his programs passed? They were all horrible ideas, destroyed the economy, and were unconstitutional. He eventually just got enough supreme court justices, so they stopped striking down his laws, and some idiot, somewhere, came up with Staris decisis. Google that too, almost all judges fallow it, and it means we can't un-drop the ball when the SCOTUS drops the ball.
You place way too much faith in judges, they are biased, they are appointed by biased people.
google Korematsu, That is still on the books. Is that really constitutional? Do you really think th...
You misunderstand the word constitutional. Constitutional means the constitution authorizes, and does not prohibit something. What you are talking about is the fact we allow 9 people to decide what it means, and the usually drop the ball because they are appointed by enemies of the constitution. So by constitutional, you mean allowing politicians to get away with stuff, we are in agreement.
No courts do not decide what is constitutional, they decide what they allow the government to get away with. The same judges that judge the laws are appointed by The same wastes of life that make the laws. How on earth do you think FDR got all his programs passed? They were all horrible ideas, destroyed the economy, and were unconstitutional. He eventually just got enough supreme court justices, so they stopped striking down his laws, and some idiot, somewhere, came up with Staris decisis. Google that too, almost all judges fallow it, and it means we can't un-drop the ball when the SCOTUS drops the ball.
You place way too much faith in judges, they are biased, they are appointed by biased people.
google Korematsu, That is still on the books. Is that really constitutional? Do you really think the president has (he actually still does have) the power to detain an entire race of people with an executive order, because he feels like it? Or did the SCOTUS just let FDR get away with it.
Google Dred Scott. Is that really constitutional? Be honest here.
Are you seriously arguing that because the judges let their boss get away with making illegal laws, that the constitution is now suddenly changed by their order, and laws are constitutional? No they are de facto, but not de jure constitutional. It shows that Obama, and the idiots he appointed, attempt to undermine the constitution, because if politicians were not the enemy of the constitution, we would not need one. There is a large difference between undermining the constitution, and calling it good constitutional policy, and undermining, and getting away with it.
Basically, if you rob someone and do get cough is it a crime?
All courts do is green-light what the government does. Between the 1930s and 1995 no federal law was struck down for being unconstitutional, which means under your idea the government must be, with slight deviation, an ally of the constitution and what it stands for. If that were true, why do we need a constitution? It tells the government what to do. By the way that law in 1995 was trivial. Did George Bush fallow the constitution, never undermine it, and you have no harsh words for him? What about Cheney? Look how much the courts let them get away with. They undermined it, and got away with it. That is very, very different from being constitutional.
No, but what you need to realize is courts make bad decisions all the time. Read Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State (it is a short essay) if you want to know why the government has to expand. He is one of the most famous, highly respected, widely reputed historians in the world. In order to expand they need to appoint big-government judges, not constitutionalists. If you read the constitution, then the patriot act, you would be clueless yourself to not thing it was unconstitutional.
You are the kind of people that make it so that we have only a shell of a constitution today. The courts are populated by friends of the enemies of the constitution.
I agree with you they allow the government to pass laws, but that by no means makes them constitutional. If you want to find out about the constitution, read the federalist papers, and the constitution.