Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Can the president change the constitution?

  1. #1
    mdgary
    Guest

    Post imported post



    Can the president change the constitution?

    If not..Then why are so many people worried about our guns be taken away?

    If so..Then why has'nt past presidents done it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    The Democrats control Congress. If Obama gets elected president, the Dems will have no difficulty in authoring, sponsoring, voting out of committee to the floor, and finally passing a bill, which Obama will then sign into law. An Obama presidency will also see the appointment of several liberal Supreme Court justices, who will likely shift future Supreme Court decisions in favor of liberalism for decades to come.

    Anti-gun laws could be enacted, challenged, and Constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court under an Obama presidency, further anchoring gun control into our society.

    Think of Obama as a trojan downloader for the soros virus.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Hef wrote:
    The Democrats control Congress. If Obama gets elected president, the Dems will have no difficulty in authoring, sponsoring, voting out of committee to the floor, and finally passing a bill, which Obama will then sign into law. An Obama presidency will also see the appointment of several liberal Supreme Court justices, who will likely shift future Supreme Court decisions in favor of liberalism for decades to come.

    Anti-gun laws could be enacted, challenged, and Constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court under an Obama presidency, further anchoring gun control into our society.

    Think of Obama as a trojan downloader for the soros virus.
    +1
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    It all depends on who interprets the Constitution and how. Look at high gun control cities, they've certainly disregarded the 2nd Amendment and courts haven't batted much of an eye until Heller.

    Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid would have no problem saying your right to keep and bear arms is restricted to a dismantled .410 gauge shotgun with a trigger lock. When you want to use your gun you can go pick up the firing pin and trigger lock key at the local police station. You'll have to get a background check each time you sign for your firing pin and key, rent a GPS tracking ankle bracelet from the government, and buy your ammo from the government (with micro stamped shot) at 100 times the normal price.

    You may say the Heller decision would prevent that but remember Heller was divided 5-4. If Obama put one or two more gun control justices on the court with an anti-gun Congress you can say goodbye to Heller.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    When you write change, do you mean the words or what the words mean?







    Yes he can, and you won't like it.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    they can't change it, but they do ignore it!

  7. #7
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    they can't change it, but they do ignore it!
    Just like they have been for the past 7 years...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    When you write change, do you mean the words or what the words mean?







    Yes he can, and you won't like it.
    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    It's really a trick question because they don't have to "change" anything. They can just keep ignoring it and doing whatever they want. Google: "George W. Bush"

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    G00gle 'demos' <<--that's the Greek word root

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Whether or not the president can change the constitution is irrelevant. There are many ways for a president and a cooperative congress to pass laws that are not challengeable on constitional grounds.

    Say, for instance, that a big, juicy, pork-filled spending bill has an amendment tacked on that says, "For any state to recieve this money they must prohibit CCW or OC of firearms."

    NO one has passed an anti-2A law. No constitutional challenge is possible. If you want the money, fine. Pass the anti-carry law. If not, fine.

    How often do states turn down federal money? It happens, but not often.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    mdgary wrote:
    Can the president change the constitution?
    With advice and consent of Senate under color of international treaty, yes, generally. See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (Treaty trumps state powers to regulate taking of game under constitution), analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland.

    But see Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (Treaty provision voiding fundemental rights of citizens is void), analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert. Note that this was a plurality decision - shaky ground.

    Question: Heller affirmed the DC Cir.'s holding that the Second Amendment secures a right to arms pre-existing the Constitution. Could the United States void Heller by entering a Treaty to ban private ownership and commerce in arms?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Could the United States void Heller by entering a Treaty to ban private ownership and commerce in arms?

    I don't see how if the ruling was that the right is independant of the Constitution or law. Heller has about as much of a chance of getting overturned as Roe v. Wade. They're both landmark decisions and no matter how much the other side whines or how radical they happen to be, no one has (or, IMO, ever will have) the balls to overturn them.

    The real issue to be concerned about is the government limiting firearm ownership to muzzle loaded rifles.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    It's really a trick question because they don't have to "change" anything.Â* They can just keep ignoring it and doing whatever they want.Â* Google: "George W. Bush"
    +1

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hammond, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    It's really a trick question because they don't have to "change" anything. They can just keep ignoring it and doing whatever they want. Google: "George W. Bush"
    Google "complete failure" and click "I'm feelin lucky" 10 to 1 bet it takes you to the white house website!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Forget the last 7 years, let's look at the reality of the last 80+ years. Some may even argue all the way back to the Civil War that the Constitution has been either ignored or perverted to mean what "THEY" want it to mean. Remember that it is a legal document and once you get a bunch of lawyers together they can read into it anything they want.

    Loss of State's rights. Federalizing of most laws by perverting the interstate commerce act. Illegal taxation laws. What about the denial of property to use for defense against indictment (drug laws). We use to have individual rights now we have individual permission.

    I believe that an Obama presidency could have drastic, deep and long lasting consequences to our rights as individuals let alone abolishing the 2nd amendment by appointing activist judges who will read the direct and deliberate words of the Constitution but ignore what they mean.

    It is sad to think that out of 300+ million people (and a whole bunch of illegals) that these 2 bozos are the best we could find?

    To heck with registering Mickey Mouse to vote, I nominate him for the office of President of the United States. Although I hear he's against trapping.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    By the way I see it, we have have seen the greatest expansion of government, possibly ever in this country, in the past 8 years. Whatever Obama and the Dems want to do, it has been made all that much easier because of Bush and the Repubs.

    As for the Heller case, as mentioned earlier, it was a very important and historic victory for 2A rights. It will be a few years, at least, before Obama will try to tackle that issue again. No matter who gets elected this year they are entering office at a very bad time and I predict only one term for either candidate. If they try to place their own political agendas above the most pressing issues of the day (economy, foreign affairs, etc.) too soon, as in during their first term, than it'll more than likely gaurantee that they only serve for one term.

    Some people are concerned about new supreme court justices being appointed. If I am not mistaken the two oldest, and thus most likely to step down, justices are both very liberal. Someone correct me if I am wrong on this. But, if that's the case, then we have little to worry about in terms of swinging favor of supreme court decisions to the left. At least for a few more years, hopefully a lot more years .

    And like I said, if the next president wants a second term, it's my opinion that they have to play it "by the book" during their first term. The Heller case is a giant obstacle that the antis have to overcome - I don't see it happening anytime soon. But I still think that no matter what, our next president will only serve one term given the circumstances he's entering. Just my 2cents

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    612

    Post imported post

    The Heller decision helps.. it is a stepping stone. We need to keep vigilant and keep moving forward in our efforts to protect our rights. Never give up, never surrender.

    J

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    foxcall wrote:
    By the way I see it, we have have seen the greatest expansion of government, possibly ever in this country, in the past 8 years. Whatever Obama and the Dems want to do, it has been made all that much easier because of Bush and the Repubs.

    While I am very unhappy with much of what Bush's administration did or encouraged Congress to do following 9/11 domestically, it was no where near the greatest expansion of government in history. Just take a gander at FDR for starters and the creation of the Social Security Administration and for normalizing the concept of the government as the savior for every little problem (his "salvation" through gov't intervention is generally thought now to have lengthened and deepened the depression) and his attempt to stack SCOTUS, hijack the federal court system and talk about lying and subtrefuge leading us into war - wow. Then check out Johnson's Great Society which included and/or led to welfare, medicare and medicaid, section 8 housing, and created Dept of Housing and Urban Development (later greatly expanded under Carter and an offshoot of that department led to the recent financial meltdown) and Dept of Transportation. Carter created the Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy. As probably the greatest proportional change in size and scope of gov't see the Lincoln administration. In comparison of $ and number of federal employees (given the number of existing employees DHS absorbed rather then newly hired), the DHS pales in comparison. Not that I support DHS or thought it was a good idea, just that it was not any where near the greatest expansion of government, government oversight or government expenditures in this country.

    SNIP

    But I still think that no matter what, our next president will only serve one term given the circumstances he's entering. Just my 2cents

    I and many, many others totally agree that is the most likely case.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    we have have seen the greatest expansion of government, possibly ever in this country, in the past 8 years.

    Yes, perhaps I jumped the gun a little in making that statement. I tend to have tunnel vision at times. Hell, I've been dealing with the Endangered Species Act for some time now and that's another example which I totally forgot about.

    It'll probably be the small things we need to worry about, like some bill slipped to congress that isn't highly publicized and what not. Gradual erosion of liberties is their key to "change", we just need to stay alert.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    foxcall wrote:
    we have have seen the greatest expansion of government, possibly ever in this country, in the past 8 years.

    Yes, perhaps I jumped the gun a little in making that statement. I tend to have tunnel vision at times. Hell, I've been dealing with the Endangered Species Act for some time now and that's another example which I totally forgot about.

    It'll probably be the small things we need to worry about, like some bill slipped to congress that isn't highly publicized and what not. Gradual erosion of liberties is their key to "change", we just need to stay alert.



    I think what you should have said was the greatest expansion of the executive branch. While other presidents and congresses may have expanded the overall scope of the government as a whole, I believe Bush is unparalleled in his expansion of executive branch power.

    Things like the creation of various departments, SS, and welfare definitely expand and redefine the role of government, but as far as civil rights go, they pale in comparison to things like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.

    For reference:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060600667.html




  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Lets not forget, he is still a senator from the election till the coronation.
    so he can propose constitutional ammendments, and then in Jan. blackmail
    the states to ratify. (well half the states:shock Can we still say blackmail?

    Wouldn't it be great if spineless bush would ban him from whitehouse as
    a security risk till Jan 21. He can't get security clearence to enter, so stay outside.
    Now thats change I could support.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Banned from the WH because you don't like him? How very American.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    Wouldn't it be great if spineless bush would ban him from whitehouse as
    a security risk till Jan 21. He can't get security clearence to enter, so stay outside.
    Now thats change I could support.



    I guess you don't see the irony in that statement. Surprising, given the recent course of the conversation.


    The system works how it was designed. You have a problem with it? Blame your fellow American voters.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    mdgary wrote:

    Can the president change the constitution?

    If not..Then why are so many people worried about our guns be taken away?

    If so..Then why has'nt past presidents done it?
    In a word... Yes.

    While the 10th amendment is very clear to me, it is apparently not overly clear to others that have held the the office of President. Executive orders are a usurpation of legislative power and authority.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...(United_States)
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •