Can the president change the constitution?

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+1

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.

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.

imported post

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

imported post

cato wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Just like they have been for the past 7 years...

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.

Click to expand...

'When [size="+1"]I[/size] 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.'

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"

imported post

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

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.

imported post

mdgary wrote:

Can the president change the constitution?

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Mike wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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"

Click to expand...

+1

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"

Click to expand...

Google "complete failure" and click "I'm feelin lucky" 10 to 1 bet it takes you to the white house website!

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.

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 :lol:.

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

imported post

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

Click to expand...

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.