Was Obama (the constitutional scholar) correct

[Gdjjr]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?

Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?

 

[danielpalos]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

 

[Gdjjr]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated

Thomas Jefferson

 

[TNHarley]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

Good gawd, shut the fuck up

 

[TNHarley]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?

Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?

How manyt imes did that "constitutional scholar" get his ass kicked by the Supreme court 9-0? 9? 10?
The constitution lists the powers the fed gov has. It even states everything else is left to the states. I mean...
Of course, i wouldnt doubt that limp wristed dipshit cant read.

 

[Gdjjr]

Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?

 

[TNHarley]

Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?

Are there any?

 

[Gdjjr]

Are there any?

Apparently not-

 

[danielpalos]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated

Thomas Jefferson

What do you mean? In my opinion, he is referring to the franchise and Individual Liberty and due process. Our welfare clause is still General not Common or Limited.

Promoting the general welfare is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of Government. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause. So yes, in that sense, the general Government of the Union is restricted to the End justifying the Means, not means justifying the End.

 

[dblack]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Nope. People who want more power for the federal government have been trying to twist it that way since it all started. But that's not what the Constitution says. The only part of the Constitution that says what the government cannot do is the Bill of Rights - a set of amendments tacked on later. And the Bill of Rights was opposed by many because they thought it would lead to confusion, the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting. The rest of the Constitution designates what power government shall have, and assumes no others.

 

[Gdjjr]

the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting.

Really? can you say The Patriot Act? Who offered that as a the panacea of all that's wrong in the world?
It evisceated the 4th amendment with the "just cause" caveat called national security- it is simple, though not easy to connect the dots that have been laid out a long time before you or I was even a twinkle in daddy's eye-
In fact, it could go all the way back to The Whiskey Tax rebellion- or come forward to Lincolns save the union at all costs- or save the world from Hitler- or "communist" beneath every bed, behind every tree-

 

[TheParser]

With all due respect, some people say (in private, of course) that the Honorable Barack Obama is not in reality a "constitutional scholar."

It is really interesting that we have never heard a peep from his former students.

Most Americans respect him as a historic figure, the first President of his ethnicity in the tortured history of this country.

But "scholar"? Some people think that's pushing it a bit far.

 

[dblack]

the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting.

Really? can you say The Patriot Act? Who offered that as a the panacea of all that's wrong in the world?

Well, Biden did the first draft - but I recognize it's not just Obama or the Democrats who are twisting the meaning of the Constitution - thus the "and others" in my comment.

 

[danielpalos]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Nope. People who want more power for the federal government have been trying to twist it that way since it all started. But that's not what the Constitution says. The only part of the Constitution that says what the government cannot do is the Bill of Rights - a set of amendments tacked on later. And the Bill of Rights was opposed by many because they thought it would lead to confusion, the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting. The rest of the Constitution designates what power government shall have, and assumes no others.

What does general welfare mean to you?

 

[BS Filter]

Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar. Total fraud.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers have nothing but Hoax but insist they are Right simply because they are on the right wing. Total fraud.

 

[Hossfly]

Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar. Total fraud.

I saw the headline ticker that crawls across the bottom of a news show today. It says that in Obama's 29 hour talking book that when he was in college that he read "Marx in order to impress and pick up girls." I doubt that he ever read the Constitution and that he ever picked up girls. Bath house Barry wasn't into girls.

 

[BS Filter]

Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar. Total fraud.

I saw the headline ticker that crawls across the bottom of a news show today. It says that in Obama's 29 hour talking book that when he was in college that he read "Marx in order to impress and pick up girls." I doubt that he ever read the Constitution and that he ever picked up girls. Bath house Barry wasn't into girls.

It's well known that Obumbo met Holder at a barh house in Chicago.

 

[justinacolmena]

Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?

Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?

Are there any?

What If We Wrote the Constitution Today?

Proposals from libertarian, conservative, and progressive scholars displayed a few striking differences—but also some profound similarities.

www.theatlantic.com

Unsurprisingly, the conservative team proposes a Constitution that clearly recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes,” but it does allow for the federal and state governments to pass “reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

These failed RINO acadamics are not conservative at all. They are running mental hospitals, psychiatric wards, and insane asylums in front of legal gun purchases and they have betrayed a complete ignorance of the Constitution in their stunning denial of due process.

The progressive proposal, by contrast, does not explicitly recognize an individual’s right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, but emphasizes, like the conservatives, that gun ownership is “subject to reasonable regulation.”

Failed leftist assholes limit guns to their hired mercenary soldiers, professional law enforcement officers, and licensed security personnel.

The libertarian version alone contains no provisions for the regulation of gun rights, stating unequivocally, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The failed academics have demoted gun rights to a minor political party.

 

[badbob85037]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?

Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?

I wouldn't give sainthood . I would put 180 grains of lead in his head giving him justice.