Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/9/2012 6:39:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2012 7:19:52 PM EDT by Desp]
What things do you all think Obama has done in direct violation of the consitition? Rather it be signed into law or actions taken etc.

Edit: Some people apparently think I'm trolling, or am someone else? I was just wanting ideas, I am having this conversation with someone and wanted more examples.

Michael: I think he is a national treasure. I'd be happy to lightly debate this with you at any time. I think most people don't understand the Constitution. They vote for a presidential candidate on domestic issues exclusively (things that af...fect them directly) and indeed for that reason. candidates are forced to campaign heavily on domestic issues. But they are in reality the focus of Congress. And in a country deeply divided, we elect members to congress based on the attitudes of their districts. Thus we have a polarized congress that reflects the polarized country and nothing gets done properly. But Obama is doinga FAR BETTER job than his predecessor. As Gore would have no doubt also done had the Republicans not blatently stolen the election in 2000. I really would love to discuss this with you anytime.

Desp: Michael, you mentioned "constitution and Obama" in the same paragraph in a positive tone. I'm guessing you're glad he's completely destroying it?

His respoinse

Michael: Desp, I don't buy into the premise –– I don't believe there is any objectivity in the statement "Obama is destroying our Constitution." That is absurd. On what basis to you substantiate that? Resdistribution of wealth? Now we'r...e onto a economics 101 mission. Redistribution of wealth has been around in societies since the dawn of time. Our entire tax code dating back to the turn of last century has redistribution of wealth concepts built into it. Now if you want to argue that it is unconstitutional for us to have an income tax at all, for example, I might buy into that. Others have made that argument and failed. Just like the indians failed in asserting their land claims against the imperialst europeans who stole their country from them because they had bigger guns. But redistribution of wealth is a legitimate economic and societal concept and most economists and sociologists and historians universally accept its broad benefits.
I think people more argure over the details of application of the principle. Look, Warren Buffett says he and other excessively wealthy Americans should be taxed more. He feels that is proper redistribution of wealth. I suspect zillions on Wall Street disagree with him. But I have a bookcase full of analysis and articles all of which overwhelmingly document the overall value of the concept to a society over any of its shortcomings. Desp, to you specifically, and notwithstanding that Obama was a constitutional law professor at Harvard, I'd like to challenge this blind adherence we have to the old 200+ year document. I'd prefer to postulate this: society changes and needs change over time. the framers envisioned the process of amending the constitution as a way of rectifying that over time. But they didn't envision the day that it could no longer be amended in the real world. It really can't be anymore, and I'd have to go into a lot of detail and can't do here to explain to you why. Trust me, it can't.
Besides, the deadlock in Congress is not really that. It is a mix of the RULES of Congress (which is not in the Constitution and is what really messes up responsible lawmaking all the time) and a fragmented society that seems to be divided down the middle on almost every issue. Kinda' remids you of where the country was over slavery, doesn't it? The country went to war with itself over that. Lincoln, the Republican many think was the greatest president we ever had said he had to suspend one part of the Constitution to try to save the whole thing. He said a house divided cannot stand. Well...we are again a house divided. Sometimes I think what we really need is a one-year amnesty, where we suspend transfer tax on home ownership and everyone who wants to live in a Red state, but lives in a Blue one, can move Red and vice versa and we can break the country into two counrtries. Maybe then everyone whould like all their elected officials and no one would feel their Constitution was being compromised. What do you think?
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:40:18 PM EDT
Obamacare
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:40:32 PM EDT
Become president.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:40:43 PM EDT
Killed an American citizen without due process.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:40:52 PM EDT
being born in kenya ?
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:40:55 PM EDT
defense authorization act?
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:41:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2012 6:42:55 PM EDT by pale_pony]
"Czars" without confirmation hearings.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:41:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lightning1960:
Become president.


Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:41:55 PM EDT
As of today nothing. Nothing until it is ruled unconstitutional by the SC.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:42:15 PM EDT
Recent "recess appointment."
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:42:30 PM EDT
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:42:36 PM EDT
Haha...

Seriously.

So far we have Obamacare and NDAA...
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:00 PM EDT
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Recent "recess appointment."


Multiple times.

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4-AK:
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.


What is this in reference to?
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Illini75:
As of today nothing. Nothing until it is ruled unconstitutional by the SC.



I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The Constitution has authority over the bench, not vice-versa.


Obamacare, F&F......the list is long and growing.

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:26 PM EDT
Took Office.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
Killed an American citizen without due process.


This
oh wait this was a good thing
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:43:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4-AK:
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.

Completely ignored bankruptcy law, screwing over bond holders in favor of his beloved unions whose pensions & benefits bankrupted GM in the first place.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:27 PM EDT
Run
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Illini75:
As of today nothing. Nothing until it is ruled unconstitutional by the SC.

Question wasn't what has he been convicted of in court, it was what has he done. If I murder someone I still violated the law even if I am never caught and convicted in court.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:38 PM EDT
Well, Wookies are not dictated in the Constitution as being recognizable citizens.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArchInfidel:
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.


Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:44:44 PM EDT
Beastiality.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:45:12 PM EDT
Join date...check.

Post count...check.

Non-paying member...check.

Don't feed the trolls



Ignore button...check.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:45:16 PM EDT
I think the worst is yet to come. He's stated that he wants to bypass congress via executive order that will more than likely be overturned by the supreme court, like they did with Clinton's EO involving strike busters.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:46:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By M4-AK:
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.

Completely ignored bankruptcy law, screwing over bond holders in favor of his beloved unions whose pensions & benefits bankrupted GM in the first place.


I don't think that was necessarily "Unconstitutional", so much as just plain ol' Chicago crooked.

The Kenyan has done a lot of really corrupt stuff, any one of which should see him impeached.

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:46:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By M4-AK:
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.

Completely ignored bankruptcy law, screwing over bond holders in favor of his beloved unions whose pensions & benefits bankrupted GM in the first place.


This!
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:46:58 PM EDT
If you are going to Ignore the Facts then why ask the Question?














Impeach Obama for the Good of the Children.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:47:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2012 6:49:57 PM EDT by raven]
What else?

Meddled with state law in Arizona, saying the state has no right to enforce state laws ahead of federal laws, even if they are congruent with federal laws the federal government refuses to enforce.

Yet next door in California, they pass laws that contradict federal laws that the federal government DOES enforce (marijuana laws), but the federal government has no problem with California doing that.

This lawlessness and selective enforcement of only the laws they like is what really bothers me about the Obama Administration. But the thing that bothers me the most is the insane reckless spending that's going to doom us.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:47:30 PM EDT
All kinds of "behind the scenes" rules and regulations out sight from most of the American public, plus Obamacare, which should go away along with it's unconstitutional mandate this summer.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:47:50 PM EDT
Obamacare and his recent recess appointment. For the Country's sake this guy has to go.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:48:32 PM EDT
He turned me into a Newt!

I got better
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:49:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArchInfidel:
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.

Absolutely correct. The wording is unambiguous.

Hillary did not resign prior to appointment, nor was her six year term up.


But who's going to bring the suit to court?


CJ
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:49:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Join date...check.

Post count...check.

Non-paying member...check.

Don't feed the trolls



Ignore button...check.


I don't understand your post.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:49:55 PM EDT
what has he done that isn't a violation?

Oh and nominating 2 justices that have no intention of interpreting the constitution as it was written? How else would you fundamentally change this nation

Come on, what a dopey question.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:50:46 PM EDT
He's in direct violation of a court order regarding oil drilling in the gulf.

Also his refusal to secure the borders, puts U.S. citizens under direct threat from foreign nationals.

Did I mention Fast and Furious?

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:52:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Desp:
Originally Posted By ArchInfidel:
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.


Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.



Please clarify as to where you believe the unconstitutional act falls.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:52:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Desp:
Originally Posted By M4-AK:
Rule of law regarding stocks and GM.


What is this in reference to?

Turning US bankruptcy code on its head to ensure that stock and bond holders got fucked while his union buddies looted what remained of GM and Chrysler. Article 1 Section 8 calls for "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", not "what the fuck ever we need to pay off our campaign donors".

Also, the recent recess appointment that has the nagging little issue of not being during a recess.

Also, stretching the hell out of the commerce clause to say that government can force private individuals to buy products from private industry just for living.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:54:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Desp:
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Join date...check.

Post count...check.

Non-paying member...check.

Don't feed the trolls



Ignore button...check.


I don't understand your post.


He's implying you share many characteristics with that species known as the Common Troll. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that you might seem a bit "familiar".

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:54:20 PM EDT
What has Obama done that is unconstitutional?

The U. S. Constitution and the President


1. What are the qualifications to be president? How old must you be? [eligibility, requirements, minimum age]

Reply: It is found in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

2. What does it mean in the Constitution when it says "natural born Citizen?"

From Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad."

++++++++++++

So, does it mean that everything and anything that was done after that first day is/was illegal? WHY....should all of this, have gone this far?

Aloha, Mark

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:55:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Desp:
What things do you all think Obama has done in direct violation of the consitition? Rather it be signed into law or actions taken etc.

Troll Watch
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:56:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheBigStink:
what has he done that isn't a violation?

Oh and nominating 2 justices that have no intention of interpreting the constitution as it was written? How else would you fundamentally change this nation

Come on, what a dopey question.


With an even dopier reply.

I'm having a discussion with someone on the topic, and even though I can think of a few if I have a whole list from a wide audience, more fuel for the fire.

Saying "What hasn't he done?" isn't any way to debate a topic.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:57:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By ArchInfidel:
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.

Absolutely correct. The wording is unambiguous.

Hillary did not resign prior to appointment, nor was her six year term up.


But who's going to bring the suit to court?


CJ


If an appointed office requires Senate confirmation (not all executive appointments do), there is no appointment until the nomination is confirmed. So the question is, did she resign prior to her confirmation, NOT her nomination. A nominee has no authority to execute the powers of the office as they do not hold it.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 6:58:41 PM EDT
All of the above, plus Fast and Furious along with the currently in-process cover-up.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 7:00:56 PM EDT
The whole Lybia nonhostilities.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 7:02:17 PM EDT
Just checked, Hillary both resigned her Senate seat, and was confirmed as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009. I don't know which happened first. I'm guessing she resigned before the vote, but not sure.
Link Posted: 1/9/2012 7:03:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By ArchInfidel:
First one was appointing Hillary, look up article 1 section 6.

Absolutely correct. The wording is unambiguous.

Hillary did not resign prior to appointment, nor was her six year term up.


But who's going to bring the suit to court?


CJ


If an appointed office requires Senate confirmation (not all executive appointments do), there is no appointment until the nomination is confirmed. So the question is, did she resign prior to her confirmation, NOT her nomination. A nominee has no authority to execute the powers of the office as they do not hold it.
No she was confirmed 1/21/09, resigned 1/21/09.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0109/Hillary_Clinton_resigns_from_the_Senate.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/senate-debates-clinton-confirmation/

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 7:03:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By robertl:
Originally Posted By Desp:
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Join date...check.

Post count...check.

Non-paying member...check.

Don't feed the trolls



Ignore button...check.


I don't understand your post.


He's implying you share many characteristics with that species known as the Common Troll. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that you might seem a bit "familiar".



So am I...

Anyone else?

Link Posted: 1/9/2012 7:03:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
The whole Lybia nonhostilities.


I'll defend him on that one, the WPA is the blatantly unconstitutional part.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top