Excuse me while my sides are reattached from laughing so hard.
Obama and Constitutional in the same video? Let alone the same sentence. o.o; Wow. That's like David Duke coming out and saying he supports the efforts of the ADL.
Yeah, though his predecessor definitely started it all, but Obama is certainly contiuning to bail out Wall Street, taking our money and spending it through 'stimulus' packages, demanding lien holders fork over their claims over Chrysler, continuing to excessive tax, continuing to excessive inflate our currency and so on. All of which are very unconstitutional.
Give me a list of the articles of the Constitution Obama has violated...
Do you really want a list?
Ok, let's start with the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 5 strictly prohibits the taking of property without due process. It, also, prohibits the taking of property without compensation. We've received neither when our property was taken to bail out Fannie/Freddie/AIG/Citi/Goldman Sachs/GM/Chrysler/etc. Thus, it's illegal. The stimulus package is, also, illegal, as the general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8 certainly does not cover the weatherizing of a home, nor does it cover establishing 'green' jobs (which merely export pollution to electric power plants), and so on. General welfare is the well-being of the entire nation, as a whole, not the well-being of a specific group of people, or specific corporations, as is the case recently. Bailouts and Stimulus packages are strictly unconstitutional. Taking the people's money and spending it on private projects is strictly illegal.
Amendment 4 strictly prohibits the search of one's private property, without a warrant. Bush had started spying on us, and Obama has certainly continued it. There was an instance where the government ransacked through bank accounts in Switzerland in a desperate attempt to find anyone that was smart enough to hide their money from the government. Highly unconstitutional, as they proceeded without a warrant or even probable clause.
Amendment 10 strictly prohibits the federal government from doing
anything that's not mention explicitly in the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states. Thus, if weatherizing homes are somehow in the general welfare of a particular state, only the state has the Constitutional authority to permit that action since there's no "Weatherizing Homes" clause in the Constitution, and therefore strictly forbidden from being carried out by the Constitution.
Now, it's clear it's illegal. There's no discussion to be had over it. The Constitution is clear. Just as torture shouldn't ever be debated, theft of property shouldn't either. Ignoring it's obvious illegality, we can debate whether it'd be even beneficial to bailout and pass 'stimulus' packages, and looking at concrete, empirical evidence from Japan's lost decade, it's definitely counterproductive, as well.
Don't confuse them with the facts.
