Chris Matthews claims it is unconstitutional to challenge the President!!!

[Conservative]

MSNBC's Matthews claims it's unconstitutional for Romney to challenge Obama | Fox News

This week, MSNBC “star” Chris Matthews made the following statement, clearly speaking out of frustration as he watched President Obama wilt under the scrutiny of the second presidential debates where he was challenged repeatedly by Republican Mitt Romney.

“I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Chris Matthews was angry with Romney challenging the president on his record during the course of an election to unseat him.

Imagine that.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it set forth that a president of the United States is above the people and cannot and should not be challenged. Is that not what a presidential election is all about – challenging an incumbent president on his record?

The Founding Fathers specifically limited the powers of the president and did not exempt a president from abiding by the laws of the land in the same manner and to the same extent as the average citizen.

Matthews and his tingly leg can go fuck themselves.

 

[mamooth]

Still stuck on the sore loser routines? You'll have to give them up sometime. Why not now?

 

[Conservative]

Still stuck on the sore loser routines? You'll have to give them up sometime. Why not now?

Perhaps you can enlighten us all, and explain what that comment has to do with Matthews saying it is unconstitutional to challenge the President?

 

[toomuchtime_]

MSNBC's Matthews claims it's unconstitutional for Romney to challenge Obama | Fox News

This week, MSNBC “star” Chris Matthews made the following statement, clearly speaking out of frustration as he watched President Obama wilt under the scrutiny of the second presidential debates where he was challenged repeatedly by Republican Mitt Romney.

“I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Chris Matthews was angry with Romney challenging the president on his record during the course of an election to unseat him.

Imagine that.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it set forth that a president of the United States is above the people and cannot and should not be challenged. Is that not what a presidential election is all about – challenging an incumbent president on his record?

The Founding Fathers specifically limited the powers of the president and did not exempt a president from abiding by the laws of the land in the same manner and to the same extent as the average citizen.

Matthews and his tingly leg can go fuck themselves.

Matthews is clearly not playing with a full deck. This was always true, but in the past it was sometimes entertaining, but now it's just embarrassing - I'm sure to some liberals, too - to watch him.

 

[mamooth]

Perhaps you can enlighten us all, and explain what that comment has to do with Matthews saying it is unconstitutional to challenge the President?

Easy. Matthews never said that. Your source made that up, and being that you guys are kind of gullible, you fell for it.

Matthews made a clumsy sentence, but it's clear he was not saying it was unconstitutional to challenge the president. Only the retarded conservative version of English would translate it in such a bizarre way. If you insist on using conservative retardo-English (the better to claim eternal victimhood), then there's no point in having any discussion with you.

 

[thanatos144]

Perhaps you can enlighten us all, and explain what that comment has to do with Matthews saying it is unconstitutional to challenge the President?

Easy. Matthews never said that. Your source made that up, and being that you guys are kind of gullible, you fell for it.

Matthews made a clumsy sentence, but it's clear he was not saying it was unconstitutional to challenge the president. Only the retarded conservative version of English would translate it in such a bizarre way. If you insist on using conservative retardo-English (the better to claim eternal victimhood), then there's no point in having any discussion with you.

You clearly are a hack.

 

[The Rabbi]

The liberal press is in meltdown over the prospect of an Obama loss. They demand the respect for Obama that they themselves never accorded Bush. Leftists are the biggest fucking hypocrites to walk the planet.

 

[Politico]

Matthews would really hate me. I refused to call the President by his title.

 

[Jackson]

Matthews would really hate me. I refused to call the President by his title.

That's funny. I do call him the president, but it just doesn't feel right. It never did.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Mathews is a closet queen. He likes wearing earrings and diapers.

 

[Ernie S.]

Perhaps you can enlighten us all, and explain what that comment has to do with Matthews saying it is unconstitutional to challenge the President?

Easy. Matthews never said that. Your source made that up, and being that you guys are kind of gullible, you fell for it.

Matthews made a clumsy sentence, but it's clear he was not saying it was unconstitutional to challenge the president. Only the retarded conservative version of English would translate it in such a bizarre way. If you insist on using conservative retardo-English (the better to claim eternal victimhood), then there's no point in having any discussion with you.

“I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Explain what he meant, then. If you can't explain it away, then there is no point of you continuing to suck up air.

 

[Nihilum]

Actually, the Constitution provides the People the right to OVERTHROW the government...so I doubt that challenging him would be "unconstitutional".

A Constitutional Convention provides us with a way to OVERTHROW our own government legally, and reelect new officials, though it has never been done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, the Constitution provides the People the right to OVERTHROW the government...so I doubt that challenging him would be "unconstitutional".

A Constitutional Convention provides us with a way to OVERTHROW our own government legally, and reelect new officials, though it has never been done.

There is no such provision.
We have elections so can throw out politicians. We have amednment procedures so we can change the document. But we cannot legally overthrow the gov't. And advocating it is a crime, btw.

 

[Rozman]

Pretty sad to see Chris Mathews turn into such an Ass Clown right before our eyes...

 

[thanatos144]

Pretty sad to see Chris Mathews turn into such an Ass Clown right before our eyes...

Turn in to? He always was one.

 

[Nihilum]

@rabbi

I guess my constitutional law professor just made it up then...along with the other professors that have mentioned it in classes when I was in college. Guess that 30 page essay, with references that I wrote in college was a waste of time too...

 

[The Rabbi]

@rabbi

I guess my constitutional law professor just made it up then...along with the other professors that have mentioned it in classes when I was in college. Guess that 30 page essay, with references that I wrote in college was a waste of time too...

Was Obama your con-law professor?
Please cite which article allows the people to overthrow the government.

Yes you clearly wasted your time in college. Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, s0n.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Its not unconstitutional, its just wrong if your white, all white people should feel guilty for the oppression of the past, pick up that mop and broom and forfeit your good job to a black man, Romney should do the same, shame on him.

 

[Conservative]

Perhaps you can enlighten us all, and explain what that comment has to do with Matthews saying it is unconstitutional to challenge the President?

Easy. Matthews never said that. Your source made that up, and being that you guys are kind of gullible, you fell for it.

Matthews made a clumsy sentence, but it's clear he was not saying it was unconstitutional to challenge the president. Only the retarded conservative version of English would translate it in such a bizarre way. If you insist on using conservative retardo-English (the better to claim eternal victimhood), then there's no point in having any discussion with you.

you are truly a moron of epic proportions.

 

[Conservative]

Actually, the Constitution provides the People the right to OVERTHROW the government...so I doubt that challenging him would be "unconstitutional".

A Constitutional Convention provides us with a way to OVERTHROW our own government legally, and reelect new officials, though it has never been done.

There is no such provision.
We have elections so can throw out politicians. We have amednment procedures so we can change the document. But we cannot legally overthrow the gov't. And advocating it is a crime, btw.

I believe he was confusing certain parts of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.