Obama and the Constitution

[CrusaderFrank]

All of you Republicans that keep talking about President Obama not understanding the constitution are just plain full of it. Your party makes these things up because they don't know what else to do. And you dopes go right along with it. What a bunch of childish idiots. Grow up.

Obama's Comments About The Supreme Court Were Warranted And (mostly) Accurate | The New Republic

Larry Tribe said Obama "misspoke" that's how wrong Obama was Tribe had to say that Obama didn't even say what he said

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/04/laurence-tribe-obama-misspoke-on-supreme-court/

Was Obama ever actually in class?

 

[G.T.]

Politicalchic would really love the 14th amendment if Asian looking peeps were discriminated against by law though, wouldn't she? No need to answer, I know you won't.

Korematsu V United States

Court decided it was not based on race. No 14th involved.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Politicalchic would really love the 14th amendment if Asian looking peeps were discriminated against by law though, wouldn't she? No need to answer, I know you won't.

Korematsu V United States

Court decided it was not based on race. No 14th involved.

They all just so happened to be Japanese Americans? Was it coincidence?

 

[G.T.]

Korematsu V United States

Court decided it was not based on race. No 14th involved.

They all just so happened to be Japanese Americans? Was it coincidence?

Are you trying to proclaim that I am responsible for what the court decided? If not - you have no point.

And its decision that it wasn't based on race was actually grounded in reality, at least partially.

It was based on Nationalism - to ANOTHER, ENEMY COUNTRY. Dunno how much that has to do with race exactly, but it can at least be argued.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicalchic would really love the 14th amendment if Asian looking peeps were discriminated against by law though, wouldn't she? No need to answer, I know you won't.

And....look....another child wandered into 'Rinata's Remediation Room'!

And not a minute too soon!

…fecal blizzard on the way:

OK...let's start with 'discriminate'..


dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/
Verb:
Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
Synonyms:
distinguish - differentiate - discern


I love it when folks recognize the distinctions between myself and, say...a dolt like you.

Your premise couldn't be more inane if it had been made up by a liberal...oh, it was made up by a liberal.

Did you know that Liberals actually do try to pick out the Asians and limit said group's admission to universities?

Add that to the huge list of things you don't know.
Did you know that the 14th amendment was constructed and passed by Republicans?

Add it to the list....

Did you know that the liberal idol FDR did exactly that....round up Asians, for the purpose of getting the votes of Californian fruit growers?

Add it....

And, of course, you wouldn't be a liberal if you couldn't hypothesize that laws would attack my peeps because...what....Americans are terrible people...and,

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Do you know who said that, you dunce???
Yep...another Liberal.


You must be one of the biggest fools on the board.

Now...get outta here before I break out Fat Man and Little Boy!

 

[G.T.]

Politicalchic would really love the 14th amendment if Asian looking peeps were discriminated against by law though, wouldn't she? No need to answer, I know you won't.

And....look....another child wandered into 'Rinata's Remediation Room'!

And not a minute too soon!

…fecal blizzard on the way:

OK...let's start with 'discriminate'..


dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/
Verb:
Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
Synonyms:
distinguish - differentiate - discern


I love it when folks recognize the distinctions between myself and, say...a dolt like you.

Your premise couldn't be more inane if it had been made up by a liberal...oh, it was made up by a liberal.

Did you know that Liberals actually do try to pick out the Asians and limit said group's admission to universities?

Add that to the huge list of things you don't know.
Did you know that the 14th amendment was constructed and passed by Republicans?

Add it to the list....

Did you know that the liberal idol FDR did exactly that....round up Asians, for the purpose of getting the votes of Californian fruit growers?

Add it....

And, of course, you wouldn't be a liberal if you couldn't hypothesize that laws would attack my peeps because...what....Americans are terrible people...and,

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Do you know who said that, you dunce???
Yep...another Liberal.


You must be one of the biggest fools on the board.

Now...get outta here before I break out Fat Man and Little Boy!

Actually, in spite of your self love and bloviation, YOU are one of the biggest fools on the board.

Your outlines are not proofs, they are circumstancial and void of actual solid logic. Just streeeeeeeeetches. Are you a gymnast? Duddn't look like it.

 

[edthecynic]

3. “In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.” Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com

a. Those ‘constraints’ include protections of private property, and individual liberty. Based on this, how can Mr. Obama live up to the oath of President: to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"

all of it.

To the point: perhaps you don't realize that it can't be 'speculation' since it is rich with direct quotes.....

Rich with out of context quotes and perversions of the quotes by using the red flag words "THAT IS TO SAY" what was never said. Thus a quote about the Warren court and civil rights and how the WARREN COURT interpreted the Constitution as guarantee of negative liberties, and that the court should NOT be depended on for redistribution of wealth or economic justice. He said that is the job of political and community organization.

So again thank you for showing that no quote from a CON$erviNutzi can ever be trusted, by turning a quote about what the community should do into a quote about what the court should do.

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

all of it.

To the point: perhaps you don't realize that it can't be 'speculation' since it is rich with direct quotes.....

Rich with out of context quotes and perversions of the quotes by using the red flag words "THAT IS TO SAY" what was never said. Thus a quote about the Warren court and civil rights and how the WARREN COURT interpreted the Constitution as guarantee of negative liberties, and that the court should NOT be depended on for redistribution of wealth or economic justice. He said that is the job of political and community organization.

So again thank you for showing that no quote from a CON$erviNutzi can ever be trusted, by turning a quote about what the community should do into a quote about what the court should do.

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

"Rich with out of context quotes..."

As you inadvertently point out by the extended version of the Obama quote....I was totally within context.

Had you more than a passing understanding of the Constitution, the Framer's intentions, and the Obama 'perversions' of same, you would have understood that.


If you had considered the meanings of both, the argument that you attempt to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.


Since instructing you seems to have become an avocation for me, let me continue:

1. The aim of the Constitution is to restrict the powers of government to enslave.

2. The aim of Progressives is to insist that government take from some citizens so as to purchase the loyalty of others, i.e., 'spread the wealth.'


You remain a compendium of fatuity….


I give you permission to copy my post so as to give the impression that you have actually learned something.

 

[edthecynic]

To the point: perhaps you don't realize that it can't be 'speculation' since it is rich with direct quotes.....

Rich with out of context quotes and perversions of the quotes by using the red flag words "THAT IS TO SAY" what was never said. Thus a quote about the Warren court and civil rights and how the WARREN COURT interpreted the Constitution as guarantee of negative liberties, and that the court should NOT be depended on for redistribution of wealth or economic justice. He said that is the job of political and community organization.

So again thank you for showing that no quote from a CON$erviNutzi can ever be trusted, by turning a quote about what the community should do into a quote about what the court should do.

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

"Rich with out of context quotes..."

As you inadvertently point out by the extended version of the Obama quote....I was totally within context.

Had you more than a passing understanding of the Constitution, the Framer's intentions, and the Obama 'perversions' of same, you would have understood that.


If you had considered the meanings of both, the argument that you attempt to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.


Since instructing you seems to have become an avocation for me, let me continue:

1. The aim of the Constitution is to restrict the powers of government to enslave.

2. The aim of Progressives is to insist that government take from some citizens so as to purchase the loyalty of others, i.e., 'spread the wealth.'


You remain a compendium of fatuity….


I give you permission to copy my post so as to give the impression that you have actually learned something.

"THAT IS TO SAY" you know the quote was taken out of context, in fact the exact opposite context you used, but you can't stop yourself from being a pompous ass.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

1. Although Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar, he has never published a single scholarly article or book, although he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He subscribes to the Progressive liberal view that the Constitution “ is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.” Got a problem with the Constitution? - USATODAY.com


2. He did not teach, and seems to have no knowledge of the structural aspects of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, or of the nature of executive power.

a. Obama taught the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the liberal’s favorite clause, and the pretext for many of the radical Supreme Court rulings of the Warren Court era. Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus | Power Line

b. The other courses he taught were “Racism and the Law” and voting rights. Politics | Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing | Seattle Times Newspaper



3. “In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.” Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com

a. Those ‘constraints’ include protections of private property, and individual liberty. Based on this, how can Mr. Obama live up to the oath of President: to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?



4. At a March 30, 2007, campaign fundraiser, then-candidate Barack Obama stated "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."

a. Of course, he immediately continued the practice of ‘signing statements.” Remember this: “ We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.” Obama to add signing statement to defense authorization opposing McCain-Levin amendment « Hot Air

b. Then, afraid of the court's view of ObamaCare: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint."

c. “Seriously, Mr. President? The Supreme Court (or, as he's referred to them, "an unelected group of people") doesn't have the authority to strike down acts of Congress that violate the Constitution? For a supposed former "constitutional law professor," these statements betray a shocking level of ignorance about the concept of judicial review and the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, that enshrined it in American jurisprudence.” Legally Speaking: President Obama, time for a refresher course on Constitutional Law" | Southeast Texas Record

d. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal…. As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, — that “notion” was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of “Constitutional Law” at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.” Texas Insider » State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution



5. In a way, Mr.Obama has done the nation a great favor by reviving public interest in the Constitution, and specifically the clauses, spelling out the “few and defined” powers, as James Madison put it, of the federal government. And that is what the Tea Party movement is about!

a. The election of 2012 could mark the end of a Progressive century,- from Woodrow Wilson, 1912- and a return to an older, sounder constitutional order. It is a reminder that the Constitution begins “We the people…”

Above from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents," Steven Hayward



So, the resume of the President with the thinnest record of achievement of any modern President, got even thinner.

November....the choice is clear.

The last president we had that believed in the constitution was JFK and he paid the price for trying to follow it.None of the presidents we have had since then followed the constitutuition.They have all been willing puppets for the establishment.Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who believes in it and follows it.The choice in november is clear alright.

 

[Rinata]

Nobody is going to read this long, boring post of yours. Certainly I am not. You never have anything of value to contribute. But you think you are some kind of superior intellectual. You're not. Get a clue.

 

[NLT]

 

[Rinata]

All of you Republicans that keep talking about President Obama not understanding the constitution are just plain full of it. Your party makes these things up because they don't know what else to do. And you dopes go right along with it. What a bunch of childish idiots. Grow up.

Obama's Comments About The Supreme Court Were Warranted And (mostly) Accurate | The New Republic

Larry Tribe said Obama "misspoke" that's how wrong Obama was Tribe had to say that Obama didn't even say what he said

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Laurence Tribe: Obama Misspoke on Supreme Court - Washington Wire - WSJ

Was Obama ever actually in class?

What is wrong with having to clarify something?? So what?? Was it a problem when George W. Bush did it?? Or Bill Clinton?? Never mind. I know the answer. No and yes.

No prior president was perfect, why does Obama have to be?? No matter what he does he is criticized for it. And I think it really sucks.

 

[Rinata]

I don't mean to derail the thread but Bush was on par with Obama on accomplishments and Mitt is just as bad off... Let’s be honest, Mitt ran his state into the ground with one of the biggest grabs of power in HC that any state has ever done, then he made the rest of the country pay for it at about 500 million a year so he didn’t have to raise taxes in his state.

As far as I know Mitts record in business is not all that stellar either, he in fact did nothing that most random people picked up of the street couldn't do.

Mitt never served in the armed forces and as far as I can tell he never held a job that didn't pay him millions for less than 15 hours a week of "work."

My point is not to defend Obama because Obama is in fact a stupid human being with almost no understanding of the constitution, but almost everything that proves Obama has a stunning lack of understanding of the constitution Mitt supported or even did as Governor… Presidents today seem to be the anti American, like both sides have pushed so far from our rule of law that to debate who is worse has lost all meaning.

Who cares if Mitt made a bunch of money, he has ZERO plans to cut with the budget he offered up, in fact his budget would slightly add to the deficit spending Obama is currently doing if I remember correctly.

Certainly glad to have you share your thoughts on Obama vis-a-vis Bush vis-a-vis Romney.......

...but, to be certain that you understand the import of the OP, it is engendered because only one of the three claims to be a constitutional scholar.

The OP provides confirmation that this is not the case, and disabuses all and every supporter of Obama so as to prove that they have been hoodwinked.

Nobody proved anything. This thread is starting to bore me. The same crap all the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rich with out of context quotes and perversions of the quotes by using the red flag words "THAT IS TO SAY" what was never said. Thus a quote about the Warren court and civil rights and how the WARREN COURT interpreted the Constitution as guarantee of negative liberties, and that the court should NOT be depended on for redistribution of wealth or economic justice. He said that is the job of political and community organization.

So again thank you for showing that no quote from a CON$erviNutzi can ever be trusted, by turning a quote about what the community should do into a quote about what the court should do.

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

"Rich with out of context quotes..."

As you inadvertently point out by the extended version of the Obama quote....I was totally within context.

Had you more than a passing understanding of the Constitution, the Framer's intentions, and the Obama 'perversions' of same, you would have understood that.


If you had considered the meanings of both, the argument that you attempt to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.


Since instructing you seems to have become an avocation for me, let me continue:

1. The aim of the Constitution is to restrict the powers of government to enslave.

2. The aim of Progressives is to insist that government take from some citizens so as to purchase the loyalty of others, i.e., 'spread the wealth.'


You remain a compendium of fatuity….


I give you permission to copy my post so as to give the impression that you have actually learned something.

"THAT IS TO SAY" you know the quote was taken out of context, in fact the exact opposite context you used, but you can't stop yourself from being a pompous ass.

Must I continue to instruct you???


Watch casefully, if woefully, as I eviscerate your precis....

1. From the OP..
“In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.”
Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com


Now, a short quiz:

2. Is the OP a critique of Obama...
Yes or no?

3. In the item above, is Obama chastising the Warren Court as not going far enough...
Yes or no?

3. Does Obama believe that the US Constitution places restriction on government, i.e., limit it to 'negative liberties,'...
Yes or no?

4. By extension, is Obama in favor of 'positive liberties,' i.e., naming what government must give citizens...
Yes or no?

5. Is not the above encapsulated in the phrases 'spread the wealth,' and 'social justice'...
Yes or no?

6. Since government does not earn money, but only has what it gets from citizens, doesn't this suggest where Obama intends to get the money, i.e., confiscatory taxation...
Yes or no?

Now....you may continue to perform as the poster child for political ignorance, but try to do in an honest fashion: since the correct answer to each of the above is a resounding "YES," clearly my quote is in context.


Now...
a. admit you were wrong.

b. beg my forgiveness

c. print out your posts and have them for lunch.

Chop chop.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Nobody is going to read this long, boring post of yours. Certainly I am not. You never have anything of value to contribute. But you think you are some kind of superior intellectual. You're not. Get a clue.

True enough.The title alone is all i was interested in reading.I just skipped down to the end where it said -"the choice is clear cut in november." which again for any true american who cares about their country,thats to vote for ron paul.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nobody is going to read this long, boring post of yours. Certainly I am not. You never have anything of value to contribute. But you think you are some kind of superior intellectual. You're not. Get a clue.

Now, Rinata...

"you think you are some kind of superior intellectual."

...I hesitate to take advantage of the situation.

Are you suggesting mine is not a superior intellect when compared to yours?

Are you sure you wish to spotlight that contest???


I suggest you stick to wrapping your pseudopods around some tasty bit of algae, rather than attempting what you are clearly not suited for.....


BTW....did you decide on which Romney pic you're going to use?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Love that pic.lol.


that again is what every president since nov 22nd 1963 has done with the constitution,wipe their ass with it.Thats why we need Ron Paul in office.He is the only candidate who believes in it.He would do what this fraud president lied he would do.change things for the good of the people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of you Republicans that keep talking about President Obama not understanding the constitution are just plain full of it. Your party makes these things up because they don't know what else to do. And you dopes go right along with it. What a bunch of childish idiots. Grow up.

Obama's Comments About The Supreme Court Were Warranted And (mostly) Accurate | The New Republic

Larry Tribe said Obama "misspoke" that's how wrong Obama was Tribe had to say that Obama didn't even say what he said

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Laurence Tribe: Obama Misspoke on Supreme Court - Washington Wire - WSJ

Was Obama ever actually in class?

What is wrong with having to clarify something?? So what?? Was it a problem when George W. Bush did it?? Or Bill Clinton?? Never mind. I know the answer. No and yes.

No prior president was perfect, why does Obama have to be?? No matter what he does he is criticized for it. And I think it really sucks.

If we define the character of the American nation in consistence with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the beliefs of the Founders,...

...then the mistake in the White House is the most rabid radical anti-American President since 1912.....



Don't you agree?


Oh....my bad....I forgot who I was addressing....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't mean to derail the thread but Bush was on par with Obama on accomplishments and Mitt is just as bad off... Let’s be honest, Mitt ran his state into the ground with one of the biggest grabs of power in HC that any state has ever done, then he made the rest of the country pay for it at about 500 million a year so he didn’t have to raise taxes in his state.

As far as I know Mitts record in business is not all that stellar either, he in fact did nothing that most random people picked up of the street couldn't do.

Mitt never served in the armed forces and as far as I can tell he never held a job that didn't pay him millions for less than 15 hours a week of "work."

My point is not to defend Obama because Obama is in fact a stupid human being with almost no understanding of the constitution, but almost everything that proves Obama has a stunning lack of understanding of the constitution Mitt supported or even did as Governor… Presidents today seem to be the anti American, like both sides have pushed so far from our rule of law that to debate who is worse has lost all meaning.

Who cares if Mitt made a bunch of money, he has ZERO plans to cut with the budget he offered up, in fact his budget would slightly add to the deficit spending Obama is currently doing if I remember correctly.

Certainly glad to have you share your thoughts on Obama vis-a-vis Bush vis-a-vis Romney.......

...but, to be certain that you understand the import of the OP, it is engendered because only one of the three claims to be a constitutional scholar.

The OP provides confirmation that this is not the case, and disabuses all and every supporter of Obama so as to prove that they have been hoodwinked.

Nobody proved anything. This thread is starting to bore me. The same crap all the time.

"This thread is starting to bore me. "

Is it true that only shiny objects fascinate you?