U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:26 PM
 
40,004 posts, read 24,261,981 times
Reputation: 12585

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I often wonder how much Obama really does know about the Constitution, the very subject he lectured to college students about. Is there really a chance that he thinks he can destroy the Constitution with all his machinations? It sure looks like that is the case.

***Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)***

One more quote from the link that I find very acceptable to non-progressives would be, One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.

The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)

Verilli Not Administration's Worst Lawyer After All - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative Columnists
This is stupid. I'm sorry, but the column is simply stupid. Roe v Wade is a lifetime ago, literally. The argument before the court was long before Obama became politically active. Coulter's ridiculing of the argument displays her habit of ignoring facts for cute one-liners. Her depiction of the argument has no intellectual merit at all. And that doesn't mean I don't think Coulter is smart. She's a sharp cookie. And she knows that making logical arguments takes work, and it's needless work, since all she has to do is make her cute one-liners and the shallow audience she panders to all applaud and fall over themselves to spread the cutesy humor.

Obama has no intention of destroying the Constitution. No matter how much you repeat it, no matter how fervently you cherish the idea, the simple truth is that Obama and liberals support the Constitution every bit as much as conservatives do. That there are different interpretations of the Constitution has been the norm from day one. That's why we have the Supreme Court, to render a definitive interpretation that our laws can reference and judges can be guided by.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
35,064 posts, read 19,178,389 times
Reputation: 20655
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I can't do that since I only prepared tests for the 12th graders I taught about the Constitution. I would like to see how well he could do with some of those tests, though.

Mail him one and see if he can do it. I'll bet he's smarter than a 5th grader. 12th grader? I'd wanta see the test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,133,844 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The topic is titled "Obama may well be the administration's worst lawyer," and goes on to refer to Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made in 1972. By my calculation, Obama was 10 years old then. What does Roe v Wade have to do with Obama's lawyering?

Moreover, the Coulter writes in her column that the "right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution." However, the Constitution also says nothing about the Supreme Court having the right of declaring a law unconstitutional also -- that was a power the Supreme Court gave itself under Marbury v Madision.

But if you want to expand this into saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has the right to decide that, the Supreme Court has ruled in Daimler Chrysler v Cuno, 547 US 332, 341 (2006) that the courts have no business deciding cases that are not in controversy. Since the individual mandate is not in effect, there is no case in controversy. Thus, the Supreme Court has no judicial review authority here.
Have you failed to read in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? It says that when controversies arise between the US and the people that the Supreme Court has the power to determine the legality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Obamacare has had both those things happen and there is controversy from state governments about how this law will be financed. The mandate that requires all of us to be insured for health care is what is being questioned. Oh, yes, there is plenty of question for them to determine constitutionality and the have accepted the case.

How will you progressive thinkers finance the law if the court wipes our that mandate? I don't think you will soon pass anything like single payer, at least, till you take over both houses of Congress again.

You say that the individual mandate is not in effect, yet, but everybody is being forced to make provision for a couple of years from now when the whole law has caused enough money to be raised to fund it with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:36 PM
 
23,851 posts, read 19,802,302 times
Reputation: 9381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
This is stupid. I'm sorry, but the column is simply stupid. Roe v Wade is a lifetime ago, literally. The argument before the court was long before Obama became politically active. Coulter's ridiculing of the argument displays her habit of ignoring facts for cute one-liners. Her depiction of the argument has no intellectual merit at all. And that doesn't mean I don't think Coulter is smart. She's a sharp cookie. And she knows that making logical arguments takes work, and it's needless work, since all she has to do is make her cute one-liners and the shallow audience she panders to all applaud and fall over themselves to spread the cutesy humor.

Obama has no intention of destroying the Constitution. No matter how much you repeat it, no matter how fervently you cherish the idea, the simple truth is that Obama and liberals support the Constitution every bit as much as conservatives do. That there are different interpretations of the Constitution has been the norm from day one. That's why we have the Supreme Court, to render a definitive interpretation that our laws can reference and judges can be guided by.
You obviously missed the point. WAY missed the point.

1) Coulter was not inserting Obama into the Roe v Wade argument. She was prefacing the argument with another Supreme Court decision that in fact DID overturn 50 state laws. Which goes to prove (as if proof was needed) that there's nothing "unprecedented" about the Supreme Court overturning legislation. That's what Obama stated. Barack Obama is as wrong as it gets. There are multitudes of examples. It's almost unbelieveable that he even went down that path. But he did. Coulter is rightfully calling him out.

2) Coulter is not implying that Obama is out to "destroy the Constitution." She's simply providing a solid case as to how and why Barack Obama got it all wrong in his anti-Supreme Court rant.

3) Coulter is also pointing out that it's highly curious (and even laughable) that the very President that Left have vociferously put on a pedestal for being a "Constitutional Scholar" and "Harvard Law Professor" has all of a sudden found himself facing an unconstitutional ruling towards his most significant accomplishment. It does not get any more ironic (or embarrassing) than that.

You wildly missed the point DC. I'm not 100% sure you even read the article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,133,844 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
This is stupid. I'm sorry, but the column is simply stupid. Roe v Wade is a lifetime ago, literally. The argument before the court was long before Obama became politically active. Coulter's ridiculing of the argument displays her habit of ignoring facts for cute one-liners. Her depiction of the argument has no intellectual merit at all. And that doesn't mean I don't think Coulter is smart. She's a sharp cookie. And she knows that making logical arguments takes work, and it's needless work, since all she has to do is make her cute one-liners and the shallow audience she panders to all applaud and fall over themselves to spread the cutesy humor.

Obama has no intention of destroying the Constitution. No matter how much you repeat it, no matter how fervently you cherish the idea, the simple truth is that Obama and liberals support the Constitution every bit as much as conservatives do. That there are different interpretations of the Constitution has been the norm from day one. That's why we have the Supreme Court, to render a definitive interpretation that our laws can reference and judges can be guided by.
According to Coulter, it seems to me, that Roe v. Wade was over 53 million lifetimes ago. The fact that she selected abortion as her example of how progressives have tried so hard to make us believe that the Commerce Clause is usable as arguments for everything. She did mention the fact that it had been used to support Roe v. Wade often, I thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:42 PM
 
867 posts, read 402,691 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I often wonder how much Obama really does know about the Constitution, the very subject he lectured to college students about. Is there really a chance that he thinks he can destroy the Constitution with all his machinations? It sure looks like that is the case.

***Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)***

One more quote from the link that I find very acceptable to non-progressives would be, One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.

The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)

Verilli Not Administration's Worst Lawyer After All - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative Columnists
I don't know about being the admin's worst lawyer, but her definitely is Americas worst president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,133,844 times
Reputation: 4269
[quote=AeroGuyDC;23728919]You obviously missed the point. WAY missed the point.

1) Coulter was not inserting Obama into the Roe v Wade argument. She was prefacing the argument with another Supreme Court decision that in fact DID overturn 50 state laws. Which goes to prove (as if proof was needed) that there's nothing "unprecedented" about the Supreme Court overturning legislation. That's what Obama stated. Barack Obama is as wrong as it gets. There are multitudes of examples. It's almost unbelieveable that he even went down that path. But he did. Coulter is rightfully calling him out.

2) Coulter is not implying that Obama is out to "destroy the Constitution." She's simply providing a solid case as to how and why Barack Obama got it all wrong in his anti-Supreme Court rant.

3) Coulter is also pointing out that it's highly curious (and even laughable) that the very President that Left have vociferously put on a pedestal for being a "Constitutional Scholar" and "Harvard Law Professor" has all of a sudden found himself facing an unconstitutional ruling towards his most significant accomplishment. It does not get any more ironic (or embarrassing) than that.

You wildly missed the point DC. I'm not 100% sure you even read the article.[/QUOTE

Great job of explaining the whole thing, as far as I think Coulter was talking about. I doubt that many, if any, of our "friends" read the whole article but they did manage to go after the parts that I quoted to see what they would speak to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:56 PM
 
40,004 posts, read 24,261,981 times
Reputation: 12585
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
You obviously missed the point. WAY missed the point.

1) Coulter was not inserting Obama into the Roe v Wade argument. She was prefacing the argument with another Supreme Court decision that in fact DID overturn 50 state laws. Which goes to prove (as if proof was needed) that there's nothing "unprecedented" about the Supreme Court overturning legislation. That's what Obama stated. Barack Obama is as wrong as it gets. There are multitudes of examples. It's almost unbelieveable that he even went down that path. But he did. Coulter is rightfully calling him out.

2) Coulter is not implying that Obama is out to "destroy the Constitution." She's simply providing a solid case as to how and why Barack Obama got it all wrong in his anti-Supreme Court rant.

3) Coulter is also pointing out that it's highly curious (and even laughable) that the very President that Left have vociferously put on a pedestal for being a "Constitutional Scholar" and "Harvard Law Professor" has all of a sudden found himself facing an unconstitutional ruling towards his most significant accomplishment. It does not get any more ironic (or embarrassing) than that.

You wildly missed the point DC. I'm not 100% sure you even read the article.
1. Bringing up Roe v Wade wasn't about making a thoughtful argument. Coulter used it to push people's emotional buttons, because it's easier to get people on the bandwagon by appealing to emotions rather than reason. And that is her modus operandi. She doesn't make logical arguments anymore, she's all about cutesy slogans and emotional arguments. That doesn't mean I don't think she has the intellect to make such logical arguments, because I think she's a very smart woman. She's just found that it's easier and more profitable to play on people's emotions. Roe v Wade is thrown into the debate much more often to play on people's emotions (as you and I have demonstrated on the abortion threads, it's an emotional topic), than as a rational, reasoned, logical argument. And her rhetoric here, is designed to play on people's emotions.

2. The OP implied that Obama was out to "destroy the Constitution". In those words actually. His words. Not mine.

3. The ruling hasn't been made yet. And while I was tempted to go into the shortcomings of the government's presentation of the case, as well as to discuss the shortcomings of this court, I felt that would be a hi-jacking of the thread. I'm trying to be better about that bad habit of mine.

So, no, I didn't miss the point at all. But thank you for explaining so nicely how you read my post. I appreciate the feedback.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:00 PM
Status: "Trump: Comrade!" (set 6 days ago)
 
10,477 posts, read 6,175,946 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Have you failed to read in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? It says that when controversies arise between the US and the people that the Supreme Court has the power to determine the legality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Obamacare has had both those things happen and there is controversy from state governments about how this law will be financed. The mandate that requires all of us to be insured for health care is what is being questioned. Oh, yes, there is plenty of question for them to determine constitutionality and the have accepted the case.

How will you progressive thinkers finance the law if the court wipes our that mandate? I don't think you will soon pass anything like single payer, at least, till you take over both houses of Congress again.

You say that the individual mandate is not in effect, yet, but everybody is being forced to make provision for a couple of years from now when the whole law has caused enough money to be raised to fund it with.

Here is your clause:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Note that it does not state that the Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving the US 'and the people'. Really, I don't believe it states anything like what you believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:00 PM
 
40,004 posts, read 24,261,981 times
Reputation: 12585
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
According to Coulter, it seems to me, that Roe v. Wade was over 53 million lifetimes ago. The fact that she selected abortion as her example of how progressives have tried so hard to make us believe that the Commerce Clause is usable as arguments for everything. She did mention the fact that it had been used to support Roe v. Wade often, I thought.
The "53 million lifetimes ago" would be the pressing of an emotional button, rather than the assertion of a real argument. It hasn't been 53 years, never mind 53 lifetimes or 53 million lifetimes. But the 53 million lifetimes has emotional resonance. That's Coulter, it's who she is as a pundit. She doesn't appeal to reason, she appeals to emotions. Which is perfectly fine, and apparently very profitable. But her arguments won't withstand rational challenge. They aren't designed to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:19 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top