The Unconstitutional Presidency

[hazlnut]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

"....and say nothing."


Yet you cannot resist attempting to counter same.


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

[JimH52]

You really should read some more recent news accounts.

Really? How many executive orders has O made since the article was written? Link

And there it is again.

A liberal demanding that others do its work for it.

Nope, just tired of you guys posting lies that you cannot even begin to defend....because THEY ARE LIES. Grow a brain and post the truth for a change.

 

[JimH52]

You really should read some more recent news accounts.

Really? How many executive orders has O made since the article was written? Link

And there it is again.

A liberal demanding that others do its work for it.

So obviously YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR POSITION!

 

[Dot Com]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

^ that

PC is a nice enough person but yeah, the relentless, lamenting over the President's overwhelming electoral victory is a bit much to see day after day after day after.....

 

[candycorn]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

Correct. She curates sources for what she thinks will have optimum impact then ignores counter-factuals. One thing she likes to reference is the price of gasoline being X% higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

SIDEBAR: How come liberals and Democrats can't cite anything about Bush but conservatives and Republicans feel free to do it when remembering what they think were the "good old days".

Anyway, what she refers to is theaverage price on the day Bush left office which was somewhere in the $2.00 range. A few months before that, the average price was over $4.00 a gallon.

Historical Gas Price Charts - GasBuddy.com Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us

That she has to engage in such hackdom re-enforces your point.

 

[regent]

The average American cannot name all of America's presidents but the ones he can name are considered the strong presidents, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, Jackson and so on, rarely do they remember Harrison, Pierce, Fillmore and others. The presidents we remember are usually considered the strong presidents, the presidents that did more than tend the garden for four years. The strong presidents usually went outside the president's usual behavior patterns and did more than most. The strong presidents were also accused, during their time, of being too strong, of being dictators, kings tyrants and so forth and always violating the Constitution. Whether will this hold true for Obama remains to be seen, but I would suspect America will have Obamacare for many years to come.

 

[jasonnfree]

Reagan sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation, Iran, and coupled this with a money laundering scheme to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua. He did this in direct violation of the Constitution yet your side has never condemned him.

George Bush used the federal government to tap the communications of American citizens without a warrant (which he obtained only later when his attorney general refused to continue certifying his anti-constitutional program).

Nixon's crimes against the Constitution are legend.

You're leading presidential candidate has established a pay to play rats nest of bribery and dirty tricks in New Jersey.

When your party has the presidency, they shred the Constitution. When your party does not have the presidency, they invent or twist stories to make it look like the opposing party has violated the Constitution. This is why Bill Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, whereas George Bush never had to answer one question about illegally tapping the communications of American citizens. This is what your party does, this is what it has always done.

Imagine the screaming and quoting the constitution that would have happened if the supreme court would have ever appointed a democrat to the white house like they did dubya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

^ that

PC is a nice enough person but yeah, the relentless, lamenting over the President's overwhelming electoral victory is a bit much to see day after day after day after.....

", the relentless, lamenting over the President's overwhelming electoral victory..."


Now, now....be honest:

I lambasting his abysmal record.

As in:

1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

8. As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.
The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.
The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.
Obama?s Numbers, October Update



9. ... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama | NewsBusters



So tell me again: what do you see above worth voting for?

 

[L.K.Eder]

i lambadasting this abysmal thread. yeehaw.

 

[HenryBHough]

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

Good to see that Governor Palin is alive and well and thriving in your head!

 

[L.K.Eder]

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

Good to see that Governor Palin is alive and well and thriving in your head!

be glad that she is thriving somewhere.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]...

Brilliant OP. As to the noted question. I can see WHY the government no longer teaches civics or the Constitution, and I can see the tragedy which is, inevitably, coming like a TRAIN IN THE NIGHT, as a result.

Those who decide what is to be taught are the same people that set Obozo in office.

They are people who advocate FOREIGN IDEAS which are HOSTILE to American Principle and to paraphrase a former President, 'they're not with us'. They're proponents of the addled notion that the Collective's best interests are served from the top. Where history has shown time and again that such serves only the interests of those AT THE TOP, leaving the collective to suffer endless abuses, until again, inevitably, it collapses into its fiery destructive end.

Like it, dislike it, agree or disagree, those are the relevant facts and I don't see much on the horizon that is likely to save it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

...[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]...

Brilliant OP. As to the noted question. I can see WHY the government no longer teaches civics or the Constitution, and I can see the tragedy which is, inevitably, coming like a TRAIN IN THE NIGHT, as a result.

Those who decide what is to be taught are the same people that set Obozo in office.

They are people who advocate FOREIGN IDEAS which are HOSTILE to American Principle and to paraphrase a former President, 'they're not with us'.

oh no, not like a train in the night. those are the worst. trains. fuck. where are my keys.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not only has Obama behaved extra-constitutionally, but he is so arrogant as to threaten to continue operating outside of the legislative branch.
He makes clear..."I have a pen"...that he will govern via executive orders, whether or not the Congress has sent laws that authorize his actions.




1." “He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.”




2. That is how Alexander Hamilton, in 67 Federalist, lampooned the picture of the presidency that was being painted by critics of the Constitution.

3. ....on the eve of the State of the Union message that is required by the same Constitution for which Hamilton was harping, we are [still arguing], as President Obama vows to conduct his office without authority of the Congress and with the aim of implementing policies and programs it did not ...approve.




4. These stampings of the presidential foot are one of the darnedest things we’ve covered...

5. “You can do a lot,” Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, Daniel Pfeiffer, was quoted by USA Today as having said on Fox News Sunday... executive orders last year on “new climate change regulations” and “expanding wireless access for schools.”

6. ... Mr. Obama “is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress.”





[Can you see why it is tragic that government schools no longer teach civics or the Constitution?]





7. USA Today reported... that Mr. Obama’s “authority is limited.” It said his “biggest agenda items” would “require legislation from Congress, including the Republican-run House.”

8. Hamilton [wrote] in 70 Federalist about the importance of “energy” in the executive and the danger of “feebleness.” It strikes us that by emphasizing what he can do without reference to Congress the president is underlining the latter.






9. ....all the big items on his agenda — including, say, an immigration bill, a budget, a lunge for more borrowing — do require Congressional action. Even the big items already enacted — Obamacare, intelligence gathering — are awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

10. Whether Mr. Obama is actually going to stand before Congress tomorrow and lecture them on his abilities to act where they won’t, well, this is hard to foresee."
‘Year of Action’ - The New York Sun





Isn't it about time for the Congress to stand up for it's rights, it's authorities?

Time to slap the offending hand in the cookie jar.

Polit Chic

You come off like someone who is not happy about the outcome of an election (that happened almost 18 mos. ago) , and you're going to debate it and candidate that won much like Sarah Palin would -- with these long, rambling, nonsensical "essays" if you will. Run-on sentences that go no where and say nothing. A stringing together of moronic talking points with no logic or thought.

You don't come off as educated or knowledgeable on history, the constitution, politics in general…

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how government functions.

You just come off like a bitter woman trying so very hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but don't.

Which would be because she is in fact not educated or knowledgeable about history, the constitution, or politics in general.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i lambadasting this abysmal thread. yeehaw.

On the contrary.

By refusing to acknowledge....or even mention....the ten facts I've listed above you are 'feathering my nest.'

Keep on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The average American cannot name all of America's presidents but the ones he can name are considered the strong presidents, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, Jackson and so on, rarely do they remember Harrison, Pierce, Fillmore and others. The presidents we remember are usually considered the strong presidents, the presidents that did more than tend the garden for four years. The strong presidents usually went outside the president's usual behavior patterns and did more than most. The strong presidents were also accused, during their time, of being too strong, of being dictators, kings tyrants and so forth and always violating the Constitution. Whether will this hold true for Obama remains to be seen, but I would suspect America will have Obamacare for many years to come.

reggie.....I can name every one, in order.
How about you?

Just sayin,'......

 

[Geaux4it]

Oh stop that. Obviously it was unconstitutioal when JFK and LBJ ushered in affirm action via exec orders.

Indeed.. And affirmative action is nothing more than the 'Peter Principle'. You promote on race to their highest level of incompetence. Example- Barack Obama

Next

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

i lambadasting this abysmal thread. yeehaw.

On the contrary.

By refusing to acknowledge....or even mention....the ten facts I've listed above you are 'feathering my nest.'

Keep on.

Im out of rep for you PC. Consider the checks in the mail

-Geaux

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation, Iran, and coupled this with a money laundering scheme to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua. He did this in direct violation of the Constitution yet your side has never condemned him.

George Bush used the federal government to tap the communications of American citizens without a warrant (which he obtained only later when his attorney general refused to continue certifying his anti-constitutional program).

Nixon's crimes against the Constitution are legend.

You're leading presidential candidate has established a pay to play rats nest of bribery and dirty tricks in New Jersey.

When your party has the presidency, they shred the Constitution. When your party does not have the presidency, they invent or twist stories to make it look like the opposing party has violated the Constitution. This is why Bill Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, whereas George Bush never had to answer one question about illegally tapping the communications of American citizens. This is what your party does, this is what it has always done.

Imagine the screaming and quoting the constitution that would have happened if the supreme court would have ever appointed a democrat to the white house like they did dubya.

Never happened, you moron.



“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed.

The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.


Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Redirect

The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12




Let's see you answer this post, dope.