Quantcast

Does Barrack Obama respect/honor the constitution of the United States of America ?

CAPISCE 2013/02/23 17:31:58
No
yes
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

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

  • cc 2013/05/11 04:01:21
    No
    cc
    +1
    You have to ask?
  • knothead 2013/02/27 02:35:45
    No
    knothead
    +2
    No doubt in my mind that he doesn't. And why doesn't any of our elected officials call that fraud Oscumo? He is a liar, cheat, frud and imposter.
  • ruthannhausman 2013/02/26 09:23:18
    No
    ruthannhausman
    +2
    Leaving aside the various actions he's taken that illustrate the point, he has personally made no attempt to do the rah-rah-rah routine at all. He has made no secret of his hatred for America and what she stands for and, frankly, shame on anybody who voted the man into the highest office of a country he so obviously despises. And then you wonder, Gosh, how come we aren't doing so well these past few years. Hmmm.
  • gtorborg77 2013/02/25 23:29:45
    No
    gtorborg77
    +2
    What - are you kidding me?
  • goblue1968 2013/02/25 17:50:29
    No
    goblue1968
    +2
    There is absolutely no doubt that B.O. doesn't respect the Constitution, because he said so himself--way back in 2008, he said that the Constitution "is a flawed document", so there you have it right from the horse's a__, er, I mean mouth.
  • rcardon 2013/02/25 16:25:10
    No
    rcardon
    +3
    His sweeping "health care" law showed that loud and clear. Not to mention his push for "gun control," which is, really just a ruse for gradually repealing the 2nd amendment.
  • sglmom 2013/02/25 05:41:28
    No
    sglmom
  • nicesteve 2013/02/25 00:58:18
    No
    nicesteve
    +4
    HELLO!!! Barack Obama's only concern is the skullduggerous agenda
    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.
  • Emo Rocker 2013/02/25 00:19:25
    No
    Emo Rocker
    +3
    So for I don't believe he does no, he seems to want to change it and I"m sure he will..
  • Swampdog PWCM 2013/02/24 20:53:06
    No
    Swampdog PWCM
    +4
    For someone who 'supposedly' taught constitutional law at Yale or Harvard or where ever he never went to school at, the POTUS is clueless!
  • merlinskiss 2013/02/24 20:46:07
    No
    merlinskiss
    +5
    But it isn't just Obama! You need to add a plethora of other self-serving politicians to that fine medley of vegetables...
  • keeper 2013/02/24 18:53:26
    No
    keeper
    +4
    They claim that he taught Constitutional Law, but I think he never paid attention during the class.
  • Kaye 2013/02/24 18:49:16
    No
    Kaye
    +4
    He doesn't respect anything or anybody
  • ur XLNC-PWCM 2013/02/24 17:23:47
    No
    ur XLNC-PWCM
    +5
    Evidently......he does NOT! "If Congress doesn't act, I will"; is NOT the action of someone respecting the Constitutional way of making things happen.
  • JET 2013/02/24 16:50:26
    No
    JET
    +4
    He just breaks the law by making up the rules as he goes along. With less than 4 years left, who's going to stop him. The slime pond is adequately stocked in Washington, they just seem to forget who elected them and act as if they're self employed.
  • GAC 2013/02/24 15:35:07
  • Thomas 2013/02/24 15:22:27
    No
    Thomas
    +5
    Hell no!
  • Major Mel 2013/02/24 14:07:00
    No
    Major Mel
    +5
    This question is almost as idiotic as where does the sun rise (in the East or the West?) Of course since B.O. and even more importantly his string pullers (never forget them, the N.W.O. boys) are definitely doing all they can to destroy America, there is no doubt that neither B.O. nor his string pullers have any respect whatsoever for the Constitution or you or me!
  • Luke 2013/02/24 12:53:27
    No
    Luke
    +5
    He's trying to abolish it ...the commie bastard!!!
  • Space Invader 2013/02/24 11:54:58
    No
    Space Invader
    +4
    he knows more about it and can probably quote it by heart..most enemies can; yet the very people who believe in it; can't name one person who signed it..
    we are allowing a stupid people to represent our values....and it shows more everyday
  • Jesferkicks 2013/02/24 09:36:10
    No
    Jesferkicks
    +4
    Doesn't seem that way from my view.
  • Thomas G Towns 2013/02/24 08:17:27
    No
    Thomas G Towns
    +4
    His constitution is Marx's Manifesto
  • Just Call Me Friend 2013/02/24 07:05:17
    No
    Just Call Me Friend
    +5
    His actions scream out everything I need to know!
  • Buzzymuzzwelle 2013/02/24 05:48:24
    No
    Buzzymuzzwelle
    +5
    Not in the slightest. Buzzy
  • Divided States of America 2013/02/24 04:43:11
    No
    Divided States of America
    +4
    It gets in the way of King Hussein's agenda.
  • atomikmom 2013/02/24 04:42:17
    No
    atomikmom
    +5
    He uses our Constitution like Toilet paper and flushes it like he does to America and it's people.
  • Osama McDonalds 2013/02/24 04:14:56 (edited)
    yes
    Osama McDonalds
    +2
    In my opinion, he has done an OK job of following a majority of the 27 Constitutional amendments, with some notable exceptions....the right to privacy, in my opinion, has continued to be eroded under Obama and some back doors to getting around due process are worrisome. There is also an issue with the 10th Amendment and the federal government may be overstepping their powers in some key areas....like telling states they can't have medical marijuana when the voters voted for it. Oh, and although Homeland Security was started under Bush, I'm not comfortable with it under Obama as well.

    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.
  • Major Mel Osama M... 2013/03/02 18:13:09
    Major Mel
    Methinks thou art a liberal! Nuff said! Reach down between your legs   yank your head out
  • Osama M... Major Mel 2013/03/04 17:52:46
    Osama McDonalds
    You're about 2 weeks late with your boring response so you have been dismissed as irrelevant.
  • richie 2013/02/24 03:59:15
  • Jim 2013/02/24 03:14:03
    No
    Jim
    +5
    Not just no, but HELL NO!
  • thomas.bogan.5 2013/02/24 03:01:54
  • princess 2013/02/24 02:59:57 (edited)
    No
    princess
    +5
    Anti-American Socialists, Marxists, and Communists NEVER honor or respect the Constitution.
  • Studied 2013/02/24 02:24:12
    No
    Studied
    +3
    Do you even have to ask such a silly question?
  • Thom Payne 2013/02/24 02:09:16
    yes
    Thom Payne
    +2
    More than most 'Constitutional CONs'
  • Jim Thom Payne 2013/02/24 03:15:45
    Jim
    +3
    What planet have you been living on for the past four years?
  • CMackley ~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2013/02/24 01:58:30
    No
    CMackley ~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +6
    He studied Alinsky and constitutional law to learn how to circumvent it.
  • ddd 2013/02/24 01:57:29
    No
    ddd
    +4
    well we could start by listing the areas he doesn't violate.
    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.
  • mich52 ddd 2013/02/24 04:42:57
  • ddd mich52 2013/02/24 04:57:12 (edited)
    ddd
    +1
    First and foremost stop sounding stupid, uninformed, and uneducated and google judicial restraint.

    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...












    First and foremost stop sounding stupid, uninformed, and uneducated and google judicial restraint.

    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.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/21 23:58:00

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals