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.
To say that Obama has no respect for the Constitution is insane.
Then how insane is it, that the accusation is true?
The Constitution's main purpose is to create and limit the Federal government.
Barack Obama has been working hard to evade that purpose for four years, expanding the role of the Fed govt far beyond anything envisioned by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Those people's purpose was to confine the Fed to only the tasks that state and lower governments, and the people, CANNOT do. Obamas acts have uniformly violated that purpose, almost from his first day in office. And now that he has no further elections to worry about, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Quote:
The people that think he is "actively trying to destroy the country"
If you believe that fundamentally changing the country's structure is not "destroying" it, then you probably believe he is not trying to destroy the country.
In fact, Obama and the Democrat socialists are not "actively trying to destroy" the country. They are trying to change it in ways that they apparently believe will help it. The problem is, their belief is wrong. The changes they are making will, in fact, destroy the country if persisted in... whether they intended such destruction or not. After that's done, what does it matter what their intention was?
Quote:
Obama has respect for the Constitution; end of story.
You, and a lot of other pollyannaish people, aren't paying attention. I hope that's not the end of the story.
Generally I cannot stand politics and the internet together because it brings out the worst in people but since we just had a presidential election I will comment on this thread.
To say that Obama has no respect for the Constitution is insane. The people that think he is "actively trying to destroy the country" are crazy. It was so surprising to me when I heard that accusation for the first time. The idea that any president would "actively try to destroy the country" is not based in any kind of logic. No president has ever tried to destroy the country. We have had good presidents and bad presidents but all of them have only ever done what they believed was right for America.
You clearly didn't get the memo about Obama being a Manchurian candidate planted by Socialist Kenyans in Hawaii 46 years ago to grow up and destroy America.
He's an expert on the constitution (per his background), and per his political track-record, I can only suspect he's sold out into the system (like Greenspan on Austrian economic policy). A large majority of Republicans and Democrats are this way, or are just too stupid/uneducated/disinterested to be any better. It's called a career, but that's what you get when you couple money AND power.
He's an expert on the constitution (per his background),
Ah, more ludicrous humor! So good to see in these dark times!
Don't you find it odd that no one in four years has mentioned anything this supposed "expert" lectured on about the Constitution, back when he was listed as a "Guest Lecturer" on the subject with Univ. of Chicago?
If someone had lectured that forests were only suitable for burning, and otherwise did nothing but get in the way... would you consider him an expert on Forestry?
You certainly wouldn't use him as a reference on the subject. And for good reason. You probably wouldn't mention anything he ever said in his class, would you?
Ditto for this present "Guest Lecturer" on the Constitution.
0bama: “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth uh and sort of more basic issues of political and uh economic justice in this society. And uh As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed uh by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. Uh and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive uh change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.”
the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Who can blame poor Barry for inventing a new term, to try to disguise the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect people's freedom... mostly by putting concrete restrictions preventing the Fed govt from doing ANYTING except specifically named functions?
As for "spreading the wealth around", the Constitution did address that particular issue... by saying that the only things the Fed could spend tax money on were:
(a) Paying the Federal Debt,
(b) Defense, and
(c) things that only benefitted all American equally. That is, no special interests.
Other things are not forbidden... but must be done by "the states and the people" if it is to be done at all, not by the Fed.
No mention of robbing Peter to pay Paul... which means that is also forbidden to the Federal govt.
Barry has been doing his best to violate that restriction for four years, with considerable success (if you can call that "success").
Generally I cannot stand politics and the internet together because it brings out the worst in people but since we just had a presidential election I will comment on this thread.
To say that Obama has no respect for the Constitution is insane. The people that think he is "actively trying to destroy the country" are crazy. It was so surprising to me when I heard that accusation for the first time. The idea that any president would "actively try to destroy the country" is not based in any kind of logic. No president has ever tried to destroy the country. We have had good presidents and bad presidents but all of them have only ever done what they believed was right for America.
Bush was possibly the most criticized president in our history. Everything bad that could have been said about him was said. I am aware that the people that get so offended when the slightest negative thing is said about Obama, are the same people that so freely criticized Bush. The irony is not lost on me. That being said, I have never heard anyone specifically accuse Bush of "actively" trying to destroy the country. That would be an absolutely ridiculous accusation to make and it is equally ridiculous to suggest that about Obama. Obama has respect for the Constitution; end of story.
Ah, more ludicrous humor! So good to see in these dark times!
Don't you find it odd that no one in four years has mentioned anything this supposed "expert" lectured on about the Constitution, back when he was listed as a "Guest Lecturer" on the subject with Univ. of Chicago?
If someone had lectured that forests were only suitable for burning, and otherwise did nothing but get in the way... would you consider him an expert on Forestry?
You certainly wouldn't use him as a reference on the subject. And for good reason. You probably wouldn't mention anything he ever said in his class, would you?
Ditto for this present "Guest Lecturer" on the Constitution.
I was typing on an iPhone, which contributed to typing "the Constitution" vs. "Constitutional Law". My point being that a person who teaches Constitutional Law should have a pretty damn good understanding of what the constitution says and stands for. With his current track record and background, I can only assume he knows what he does with clarity.
This thread is pretty much proof that the right wing nut jobs are still delusional, still live in an alternate universe, and still have no idea why they lost the election or why they will continue to lose in 2016.
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.
