Alarming partisanship

[Amelia]

Democrats are so glib about Obama's constitutional abuses. All this outrage about what Romney might do within the bounds of the constitution, but none for what Obama does outside the constitution because -- for now -- his choices are politically in line with theirs. No thought to the precedent he is setting and what it would entail if followed by a later president whose political aims did not align with theirs. Frightening.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democrats are so glib about Obama's constitutional abuses. All this outrage about what Romney might do within the bounds of the constitution, but none for what Obama does outside the constitution because -- for now -- his choices are politically in line with theirs. No thought to the precedent he is setting and what it would entail if followed by a later president whose political aims did not align with theirs. Frightening.

We can only go with what Romney says he’ll do, which would also likely be ‘outside the Constitution.’ His association with Robert Bork is both alarming and substantial evidence that a president Romney would appoint justices to the High Court hostile to privacy rights concerning abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples’ access to marriage, and due process rights with regard to immigration and search and seizure.

It would be nice to have a crystal ball to see into the future as to what exactly a Romney administration would do – but we don’t have that luxury. Again, we can only decide based on Romney’s statements and deeds – for millions of Americans concerned about our civil liberties, the right decision is to vote against Romney.

As to Obama’s alleged ‘Constitutional abuses,’ I am unaware of any court that has ruled any of his actions ‘un-Constitutional.’ As with acts of Congress, acts of the president are presumed constitutional until such time as a court decides otherwise. See: Ogden v. Saunders (1827).

We are entitled to our opinions as to what we might consider to be or not be in accordance with the Constitution, and act on those opinions accordingly. But to accuse an Obama supporter of being ‘glib about Obama's constitutional abuses’ is unfounded, as indeed there is no finding in fact that the president’s actions are offensive to the Constitution.

We know, for example, we’ll get no judicial review concerning the CE and ‘war powers,’ as the courts have recused themselves from conflicts between the president and Congress on the issue. See: Dellums v. Bush (1990).

With regard to legislation such as the NDAA, Romney himself stated he would have signed the legislation into law. And Romney is in support of the Patriot Act.

Your opposition to the president is therefore just as subjective and partisan as you accuse democrats of being.

The partisanship is equally alarming, on both sides of the spectrum.