Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
First of all, he was acquitted in the impeachment, second of all there was no rape charge in the impeachment.
Bubba was not removed from office... he was not acquitted of the charges. He was inarguably, incontestably GUILTY of ALL of the charges... the Senate was merely dominated by Progs, who publicly admitted that Bubba was guilty, but who felt that the charges 'did not rise to the level' that they felt warranted removal. It was among the most notorious travesties of justice in human history... . The Sunday preceding the Senate vote, the former Grand Klegal of the KKK and Democrat Sentate Pro tem' Robert "KKK" Byrd stated in an interview on Meet the Press, stated as much: "Oh, I think there is little doubt that the President is guilty of the charges. The question we face is not one of guilt, but whether or not the charges themselves warrant removal...".
Bubba remains today, the only President in the History of the US to be accused of Rape.
Of course, obama will eclipse Bubba in that category, given the Rape he has perpetrated on the Western World, most notably to the US.
SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.
Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.
Ummm, ya... it certainly does.
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
'...The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations....'
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
Who did you think had that job?
" This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility blah blah blah....."
That's false.
SCOTUS, not you, gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.
Not true and what's more, it's LAUGHABLY so.
The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.
Here...from an expert:
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.
So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?
The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.
Here...from an expert:
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.
And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?
The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.
Here...from an expert:
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.
And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?
How exactly do you measure how unconstitutional an administration is/was?
So the accusers here can't even describe the standards by which they're accusing President Obama of being 'unconstitutional'?
Big surprise.
ROFLMNAO!
For Pete's Sake Gilligan, it's linear summation. (That means ya count up the clear violations of of the US Constitution by the respective Administration, sum that count against that of the Leftist Cults and PRESTO... ya have the measure that otherwise, so easily evades you, dumb-ass.)
By the 'logic' of the OP, those who challenged the ACA and lost committed unconstitutional acts.
How exactly do you measure how unconstitutional an administration is/was?
So the accusers here can't even describe the standards by which they're accusing President Obama of being 'unconstitutional'?
Big surprise.
ROFLMNAO!
For Pete's Sake Gilligan, it's linear summation. (That means ya count up the clear violations of of the US Constitution by the respective Administration, sum that count against that of the Leftist Cults and PRESTO... ya have the measure that otherwise, so easily evades you, dumb-ass.)
Violations of the Constitution are actions that have been declared unconstitutional by the Court.
Everything else is what in your opinion were/are violations of the Constitution.
There's a big difference, but apparently one you cannot discern.
By the 'logic' of the OP, those who challenged the ACA and lost committed unconstitutional acts.
Not only is you post false...as usual....but downright stupid, as well.
By the 'logic' of the OP, those who challenged the ACA and lost committed unconstitutional acts.
Not only is you post false...as usual....but downright stupid, as well.
Your 1st post in this thread claimed that the administration committed unconstitutional acts by arguing certain cases in the Courts.
How exactly do you measure how unconstitutional an administration is/was?
So the accusers here can't even describe the standards by which they're accusing President Obama of being 'unconstitutional'?
Big surprise.
ROFLMNAO!
For Pete's Sake Gilligan, it's linear summation. (That means ya count up the clear violations of of the US Constitution by the respective Administration, sum that count against that of the Leftist Cults and PRESTO... ya have the measure that otherwise, so easily evades you, dumb-ass.)
Violations of the Constitution are actions that have been declared unconstitutional by the Court.
Everything else is what in your opinion were/are violations of the Constitution.
There's a big difference, but apparently one you cannot discern.
"Violations of the Constitution" are the only things the Supreme Court can adjudicate.
By the 'logic' of the OP, those who challenged the ACA and lost committed unconstitutional acts.
Not only is you post false...as usual....but downright stupid, as well.
Your 1st post in this thread claimed that the administration committed unconstitutional acts by arguing certain cases in the Courts.
Well.....then why didn't you quote where I 'claimed' that?
After all....you wouldn't want readers to believe that you are a liar, would you, NYLiar?
Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.
By the 'logic' of the OP, those who challenged the ACA and lost committed unconstitutional acts.
Not only is you post false...as usual....but downright stupid, as well.
Your 1st post in this thread claimed that the administration committed unconstitutional acts by arguing certain cases in the Courts.
Well.....then why didn't you quote where I 'claimed' that?
After all....you wouldn't want readers to believe that you are a liar, would you, NYLiar?
#7 on your list of unconstitutional actions by the administration. How many times am I going to have to repeat that?
1. How many lies and fabrications did one have to swallow to vote for him in '08? Beyond the missing vetting that candidates of other parties have to contend with, the 'media' ignored all sorts of red flags, such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright....or, at least, smoothed the bumps in that road.
But to suggest a love of America and the Constitution....with this sort of pretense: "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when hesaid, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
Hillary Clinton’s earlier campaign picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."
Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
Wow! Has that come back to bit all of us!
2. "One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse. Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.
3. ...he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.
But that hasn’t stopped him.... the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, ...explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”
4. ....hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations....
1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. .... changing the law requires actual legislation.
2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself."
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013
7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.
Seriously...
The author of this thread is arguing that it is unconstitutional to make a losing argument in front of the Supreme Court.
Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.
ROFLMNAO!
And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.
By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.
Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.
And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!
So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!
See how that works?
