Obama's War on the Constitution

Si modo

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2009
44,120
7,138
1,830
Fairfax, Virginia
According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.

This is a major war on the Constitution.

Examples, please.

Here's two of mine off the top of my head:

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
 
Where was there a summary execution?

And that law..was part of an effort by Republicans to include a poison pill in to defense spending.
 
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.
 
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay.

I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.
 
Oops, forgot this recent one, too: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Richard Condray)
 
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay.

I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

That does NOT give him Carte Blanche to violate the Constitutional rights of ANY American citizen.
 
I have only heard the government's side of the story on Awlaki.

How can I possibly be 100% sure he's guilty of anything without having heard a defense rebuttal?

That's the whole reason we were given due process rights in this country in the first place...to prevent government from being able to kill someone on the spot simply because they accused them of something.

It's not about Awlaki and whether he was a horrible human being or not. It's about the precedent this sets.
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.


Happy birthday to me. Even if the news will not cover this, the congressional body will largely dismiss it and nothing will happen in regards to Obama's unconstitutional, high crime conduct.
 
Okay, so detaining people indefinitely because they are suspected of being associated with terrorists is not a violation of habeous corpus. But taking military action against someone engaged in terrorist operations in the field is a "summary execution" in violation of the constitution. Yes, I see the light.
 
I feel like what enrages the tricorn hat crowd the most about Obama is that he's taught more con law than they'll ever take.

Laughable on its face. But hey, its the same credentials that awarded him the peace prize.
 
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay.

I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

He was NEVER charged with ANY crime, EVER. And the White House and the Justice department all agree he carried out no attacks nor did he actually plan any.
 
According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.

This is a major war on the Constitution.

Examples, please.

Here's two of mine off the top of my head:

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment

interestingly, i think the war on the constitution is being waged from the right who wants to violate women's rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies, despite the protections of the constitution and already settled caselaw.... they want to violate the first amendment's guarantee that the "majority" religion will be kept out of my life to the extent i choose to have it out of my life

let's see... what else... warrantless searches begun by the last administration violate the fourth amendment... should have been done away with. unfortunately they weren't.

i haven't seen anyone lined up and shot here...

i'd be more concerned about the fact that we had hundreds of people locked up in gitmo from 2000 throug 2008 and they're still there...
 
According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.

This is a major war on the Constitution.

Examples, please.

Here's two of mine off the top of my head:

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment

interestingly, i think the war on the constitution is being waged from the right who wants to violate women's rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies, despite the protections of the constitution and already settled caselaw.... they want to violate the first amendment's guarantee that the "majority" religion will be kept out of my life to the extent i choose to have it out of my life

let's see... what else... warrantless searches begun by the last administration violate the fourth amendment... should have been done away with. unfortunately they weren't.

i haven't seen anyone lined up and shot here...

i'd be more concerned about the fact that we had hundreds of people locked up in gitmo from 2000 throug 2008 and they're still there...
The only difference - a rather big difference - is that Obama HAS violated the Constitution since being in office. The right has not. And, those warrentless searches by the last administration are supported by this one.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top