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.
And there are likewise four justices that agree with Obama that this is not the correct interpretation of the Constitution...
That's fine and dandy.
My issue is with the "Google Search" legal experts in this thread that venture to claim that Obama is "lying" and is "ignorant of the Constitution", which kind of shows thier ignorance of it I'd submit...
We can argue the validity or the outcome of the case, but it's a crock for people here to pull the tired old "He Lied" comment or "He doesn't know the Constitution"...
In a New York minute I would pit Obama against any of these brilliant, internet legal minds with regard to who was more familiar with the Constitution...
That's MY point.
The silence by the other justices during 0bama's disgraceful comment at the SOTU does lend any credence to what 0bama said. Anyone with half a brain knows that, even today, "foreign corporations" and "foreign entities" cannot contribute to political campaigns, nor would they be free to run political campaign ads - 0bama lied.
I wish he would of spoke of how the liberal members of the high court seem to think that the constitution is a document that they can change to fit their beliefs and how the conservative members do their job and uphold it
"Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates." (taken from The Washington Post)
Kudos to Alito for his shaking his head and saying "Not true" as Obama stood there chastising the Supreme Court last night. We need more Alitos who will be clear on their stand in disagreement rather than the bobble heads who agree with Obama REGARDLESS of what comes out of his mouth.
Isnt it consevatives that claim they want justices that follow the law, instead of activists judges legislating from the bench. It's very rare for a sitting court to over-rule a previous court's ruling...very rare. Was there such a pressing need for the court to even review this topic?
Lets be clear, This was not Obama's legislation. Sen. J. McCain co-sponsered the 2002 Campain Refort Act. If conservatives feel this was such a great decision, why wasnt McCain chastized for sponsoring it?
And I suppose teaching 2-3 law classes (Constitutional Law among them) per year at the University of Chicago for 8 or so years and graduating from Harvard Law means nothing either.... ESPECIALLY in light of the BRILLIANT legal minds we have right here on City-Data!!!!
I was addressing your claim to his legal experience compared to that of others. Learning and teaching legal theory, while certainly a valid backdrop to claim KNOWLEDGE, does not confer EXPERIENCE.
The silence by the other justices during 0bama's disgraceful comment at the SOTU does lend any credence to what 0bama said. Anyone with half a brain knows that, even today, "foreign corporations" and "foreign entities" cannot contribute to political campaigns, nor would they be free to run political campaign ads - 0bama lied.
Would Toyota of America be able to Run an ad for a politician touting the politicain's hard work in bringing jobs to ... his district.
This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is anartificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons.
You starting to understand? (I doubt it... )
I know, I know.... You asked for the "law", not the "legal definition", right?
I was addressing your claim to his legal experience compared to that of others. Learning and teaching legal theory, while certainly a valid backdrop to claim KNOWLEDGE, does not confer EXPERIENCE.
Fair enough. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the point still stands with respect to this group here...
So true. Obama had no business making partisan comments about the SCOTUS in the State of the Union Address.
What does that mean...NO BUSINESS? Where is there any restriction on the President of the United States from commenting on any issue. I dont recall one in the Constitution...do you?
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.
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.
)
