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.
I keep reading about Obama destroying the countries freedoms, so I thought perhaps it was time to go through the freedoms that individuals are guaranteed through the Constitution to see how well Obama is doing at destroying them.
Well call it the destroy our freedoms test (DOF)
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No proposal for a state religion, hasn't asked Congress to prohibit anyones speech, or the press or the right of the people to assemble (see Teabaggers) nor has he infringed on the right of the people to petition.
DOF Score - Fail!
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
One of the first things that Obama did was to allow the carrying of firearms in national parks and wilderness areas. Then did nothing when the Court struck down Chicago's gun restrictions.
DOF Score - Epic Fail
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Not only has Obama not quartered troops in our homes, he has sent more of them out of the country, to be quartered, I suppose, in someone else's.
DOF Score - Solid Fail
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No changes there. Another Fail
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is getting boring, another Fail!
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Fail.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
Fail.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Fail.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So far, neither the Courts or I see anything changed here. But to be kind I'll give Obama a D- for enacting mandates on health insurance. How's that?
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Nothing much happening here. Fail
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Defending the rights of citizens from losing their 4th Amendment rights (see Arizona) or the rights of gays to be afforded the same rights as other citizens is just another huge Fail!
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Fail, Fail, Fail.
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Fail
Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail.
So, what freedoms have we lost, are on the verge of losing or are even talked about discussed or proposed by the Obama administration or the Congress?
Based on your criteria Bush was great at protecting our constitutional rights.
As you point out Obama voted and has done much to implement the NSA wiretapping program that sidesteps the FISA requirements for the issuance of warrants, a program begun under the Bush administration. I say that not as an excuse but to outline that their has been no shift in policy in the regard so to sudden argue that Obama is suddenly turning civil liberties on its head is simply a non starter. By the way it is not what I consider one of Obama's finer moments. But still, within the context of this argument it is specious in the extreme.
So let me get this straight, the administrations denial of rights to foreign held detainees in a foreign and sovereign government, upheld in Federal Court is a destruction of the rights of American citizens... I think I am missing something here. You were doing good with your first point, but I think you jumped the shark on that one.
Get real, that's about as salient an argument as trying to argue that CCTV's are a violation of one's 4th or 5th Amendment rights. Where is your argument going to begin on the issue of expectation of privacy in a public setting? What is the invasive nature of the search? Good luck arguing that before a Federal judge simply based upon Court precedent.
As for your Democrats racial profiling, facial profiling blah, blah, blah... to attempt to compare racial profiling with profiling individuals based upon their actions is so risible as to defy a sane argument.
Your information is specious and based solely upon an unnamed source not directly involved with the investigation. Meanwhile, what we do no about the Administration and not the local DEA office, is that unlike the previous administration the AG Holder has declared, publicly that the Federal government would no longer ignore state sanctioned marijuana dispensaries. More like an expansion of rights not restricting them. But it was a good shot.
Well ya finally got me on one. Yep, the administration is gonna make you buy health insurance. Say that over and over again to yourself. The loss of that freedom is well heartbreaking...
I guess you shot your wad with that first point, because now were down to trivia for 500 Alex!
I doubt it, you ran out of steam after the NSA wiretaps.
You ask for example of Obama destroying personal rights. I give you examples and you just dismiss them and throw your childish little insults as well. Nice job.
Obama voted for the NSA wiretapping prgram. This means he is for the government searching people without a warrant. And of course there was no shift in policy when he became president. He voted for destroying those rights as Senator. Why should we expect him to change that once president?
The Patriot Act and stuff like that doesn't specify that the person being held without trial be a forgeigner. The president can label anyone an enemy combatant and hold them forever without charging them. He can do that to American citizens. That's why it is important and why it destroys our rights. By the way, Obama himself campaigned against this policy as a candidate. He said it was a violation of American rights. He only changed his mind after being president. Apparently Obama has no problem with holding American citizens without due process. And look how easily people now throw the terrorist word around. How long is gonna be before some president starts declaring Americans terrorists and locking them up? Within 20 years for certain. If Obama and the dems were concerned about civil liberties, like they said they were when Bush was president, they would change this law. Nothing to stop them. And you didn't say 'suddenly'. In the OP you asked what Obama has done to violate rights. You didn't put a time frame on it. Please don't change that because you don't like the answer.
So you think it is okay for the feds to be searching people at airports without a warrant? The Constitution requires a warrant to search people. Therefore those searches are invasive and illegal. Much like DUI checkpoints. Doesn't matter if you agree with them or what a judge says. Stopping people and searching them just because they want to travel somewhere (on a private airplane by the way) is a violation of rights....And trying to decide who is a threat at an airport based on their body language is a sane policy? LOLs. Don't fly if you are having a bad day. You may end up in jail. Have you been to an airport since 9/11? It feels more like a prison every day. Nothing "free" about it. All because of the actions of people that are now dead.
I don't even know what you are trying to say about the marijuana case. I assume you misspoke.
Your childish little dismissal of the health insurance law is nice. I notice you don't disagree that it is a violation of rights. It is particualry punitive to people that don't participate in the western medical system and violates all kinds of religious beliefs. But religious rights aren't as important as forcing people to buy a product they don't want.
I love this thread. You ask a question designed to try and get people to talk about FEMA camps and death panels. Instead, you get real answers. You don't know how to respond so you twist and torture the English language and Constitution in a failed attempt to deflect answers you don't like. Good job. I should expect no less from a statist.
By the way, just because you agree with some government policy doesn't mean it isn't destroying people's rights.
Oh well, glad to know there are still people out there that think it's okay to violate our civil liberties. As long as there is a D behind the name. Next time a R is in office you can go back to bitching about civil liberties. Even though Obama is doing the exact same thing right now.
Got to go to work and pay my taxes. Wouldn't want anyone to go without their "free" oxycotin that I am forced against my will to pay for.
Bush was a liberal in conservative clothing. Neither he nor Obama are centrists. They are both left of center. Obama is a clearly a socialist. He just can't get everything he wants passed into law.
I find it hilarious that a lot of people who claim Bush is a liberal were his biggest supporters a couple of years back and took on anyone who dared to speak ill of him or his policies.
If Bush wasn't a conservative, he was what they deserved.
The head of the American Socialist Party, BTW, has put out a statement that Obama is not a socialist nor a liberal. Google it. Where do you get your information?
With teabaggers, but no one really cares what they think.
Then why hide behind the word? Cowering behind a 'catch' word. That's a neat thing to do while snickering over it's 'real' meaning. 'It's a liberal thing, yo.'
Man up, call them what you really mean. You have no nerve. Just cower behind the word, a snide, disgusting meaning invented by cowardly disgusting people who brag how free thinking, intellectual and superior they THINK they are.
What a liberal cowardly disgusting thing to call people who have EVERY right and responsibility to question authority.
Liberals use the word because if they used what's IN their mind, it would reveal how snide and disgusting they really are.
None of my Constitutional rights are being infringed by this administration. I am concerned with the possibility of a "no knock" search and seizure because somebody is trying to frame me on a drug charge. Other than that I am still free to own and carry firearms, write what I want in this forum and any newspaper and do any legal business I desire and can afford. Where is the "loss of Freedom"?
a legal marijuana dispensary... want to rethink that? unfortunately at a federal level pot is illegal. California is running a risk trying to legalize what the Feds hold as illegal.
I don't remotely understand anyone blaming Obama for mileage restrictions on cars, like he invented that.
Here is my complaint about freedoms and Obama... He hasn't repealed the Patriot Act. On that one indeed freedoms have been lessened, but it came from Bush.
The Far Right is creating this atmosphere of doubt everytime you hear them speak. "Obama taking away our freedom"! WTH! Or my favorite " I want my country back"! Who took it?
Lies, lies, lies! It's one thing to disagree with his policies, but to keep lieing to the public is ridiculous.
The Far Right is creating this atmosphere of doubt everytime you hear them speak. "Obama taking away our freedom"! WTH! Or my favorite " I want my country back"! Who took it?
Lies, lies, lies! It's one thing to disagree with his policies, but to keep lieing to the public is ridiculous.
As long as you and the rest of left are not hypocrites and felt the same way in 2004.
As long as you and the rest of left are not hypocrites and felt the same way in 2004.
I highly doubt it though.
So are you insinuating that Liberals were lieing about Bush while he was in the White House?
1. He stole the election.
2. Went to War in Iraq because of a Lie.
3. Gave the Rich a Tax Break
4. Destroyed our economy.
5. Went on more vacations than any elected President.
6. Sold America to China.
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.
OK, so he's not as bad as I've heard
