Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: Nobama going ot ignore the law again????

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Nobama going ot ignore the law again????

    The proponents base their false claim on a selective reading of the 14th Amendment’s statement that, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/de...#ixzz1RN5xFo4S
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  2. #2
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Let him do it, then impeach him and throw him out on his ear. Then do a thorough investigation about what else he has been doing and let him spend some time in Leavenworth. Where he belongs for the next 50 years.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  3. #3
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    What the curly wolf said.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    This pseudo-president has gotten our country in to more debt than we will ever be able to get out of!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    Let him do it, then impeach him and throw him out on his ear.
    He should have already been impeached for violating the War Powers Resolution, in Libya.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I'm back gentlemen - for now. Obviously, the article you have offered is not biased. President Obama subverting Congress (who is incapable of coming up with a plan...so much for the 'tea party' setting things straight in Washington), and raising the debt limit, whether the act is an impeachable offense or not is up to Congress to act. My money is on Him not being forced out of office.

    I have stated this before, the beauty of the Constitution is that it is interpretive, and whatever Act the President or the Federal Government engage in prior to a Finding as it relates to the constitutionality of any issue is treated as, and is Constitutional.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-08-2011 at 07:07 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I'm back gentlemen - for now. Obviously, the article you have offered is not biased. President Obama subverting Congress (who is incapable of coming up with a plan...so much for the 'tea party' setting things straight in Washington), and raising the debt limit, whether the act is an impeachable offense or not is up to Congress to act. My money is on Him not being forced out of office.

    I have stated this before, the beauty of the Constitution is that it is interpretive, and whatever Act the President or the Federal Government engage in prior to a Finding as it relates to the constitutionality of any issue is treated as, and is Constitutional.
    The above is typical of the liberal mindset.

    The real beauty of the Constitution is that it is NOT interpretive. If it is, then tell me where in the Constitution it says it is and who has this interpretive power. The meaning of the Constitution is the same today as the day it was finalized for ratification. This meaning is easy to find. If I can find it with the limited resources that I have, then anyone should be able to find the true meaning of what the framers intended.

    Just because the nine gods on Mt. Olympus say something is or isn't Constitutional doesn't make them correct. They have plenty of times came down with rulings that would utterly force the framers (and the founders) to vomit into dry heaves. They all know what the framers intended, but some of them don't really give a damn. They have an agenda and nothing is going to get in their way, except maybe five of the other gods.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    The above is typical of the liberal mindset.

    The real beauty of the Constitution is that it is NOT interpretive. If it is, then tell me where in the Constitution it says it is and who has this interpretive power. The meaning of the Constitution is the same today as the day it was finalized for ratification. This meaning is easy to find. If I can find it with the limited resources that I have, then anyone should be able to find the true meaning of what the framers intended.
    It doesn't say it, nor does it have to - interpretation is inherent in the document. Yes, the Constitution is the same, with the exception of ratifications, well, and interpretations that are based on SCOTUS Findings.

    The 'true meaning', huh? Ok, let's say that the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be utilized specifically as some thing - can you provide to me exactly what the Founding Fathers intended?

    Considering the Constitution was put together under compromise, I think you would be hard-pressed to tell me exactly what their intent was, specifically.

    That is why, as an alternative, you can offer me a General Intent.



    Just because the nine gods on Mt. Olympus say something is or isn't Constitutional doesn't make them correct. They have plenty of times came down with rulings that would utterly force the framers (and the founders) to vomit into dry heaves. They all know what the framers intended, but some of them don't really give a damn. They have an agenda and nothing is going to get in their way, except maybe five of the other gods.
    They don't just "say something." They make a majority rule Finding. Do you have an issue with the System of Governance which we function? If so, I would love to hear how you think our System should be Governed.

    SCOTUS Findings are the Supreme Law of the Land.

    You act as if it is a bad thing that SCOTUS makes Findings. I wish I could understand how you either don't realize, or fail to acknowledge that your view of the Constitutionality of some 'thing' might be skewed by your biased view of how things should be.

    I would encourage individuals to read the Constitution, and if they are of the view that it is not interpretive (or if they are of the view that it is), they should really think hard about how one might think that it is or is not interpretive.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-08-2011 at 08:20 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I'm not going to give specifics of where to find what the Constitution means and how it should be viewed. The list is extremely lengthy and would likely take up several pages of this thread. There was no official record kept. While researching, I came across thousands of documents in the very hand of a lot of the framers. I will give a list of generalities. Start with the easy stuff, like the federalist papers and the opposite of that would be the anti-federalists papers. Then try to find as many notes that were kept during the debates on the Constitution while it was being drafted. There are thousands of these out there and a lot of them are readily accessible on the internet, free of charge. BTW, you may want to find the most common used meanings of some of the words at the time of the framing (like regulate and State, just to name a couple). The next things are a little more difficult to find and some will really put a dent in your bank account. These are the letters that went back and forth between some of the framers after the debates were over. There is a lot of other material out here that I used but it is extremely hard to find and you may feel as if you were being robbed when you discover the price of these objects. I paid it, and it was worth it.

    I have several thousand dollars and several thousand hours invested in my research and you ain't getting it for free. I know you liberals like free stuff from people that worked hard for it, but you'll have to do your own footwork this time.

    Do you know why they didn't keep an official record? Do you know why, after drafting the Constitution, the framers hightailed it out of Philadelphia in such a rush? I do. Don't ask, 'cuzz I ain't tellin'. If you can find that piece of info I will be impressed with your research skills. BTW, a hint, both questions have the same answer.

    If I can find all of these things, being a high school dropout, don't you think that the gods on Mt. Olympus should be able to find them.

    One thing I discovered while doing my research is that the Constitution is not set in stone, it is set in something harder than steel, harder than a diamond. It is not interpretive. It is steadfast.

    It is SCOTUS that decided it was fluid and ever changing. In doing so they, without the other two branches of government, increased their own power a hundred fold or even more. Congress should have impeached the lot of them at the time. It has now become accepted practice for them to interpret it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I know you liberals like free stuff from people that worked hard for it, but you'll have to do your own footwork this time.

    How did you know that I shop Craigslist 'free stuff' all the time? 'It' must have been created by a Liberal.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The constitution is not "interpretive" in that you can change the meaning. You interpret how it might apply to modern situations like the fact they didn't have computers or hand guns so how does our natural right the government is not supposed interfere with apply in those situations. The document is something that simply limits what the government can do, unfortunately since its founding the only president who didn't expand their powers in any way has been Jefferson.Interpret is not meant to distort the meaning of the law to mean the exact opposite. Other wise why have a constitution at all? Why not just say we are not free and the government can do what it wants? Or that people can vote away natural rights by a majority?

    I find it frustrating that people only want these principals to be applied to what they want. This is not meant to bash gay folks, but am using this as an example. Homosexuals want their right to have a partner of the same sex. They have fought hard and have won many battles on this. Yet when a popular vote in California bans gay marriage many homosexuals who believe in "democracy" immediately use the courts to try to overturn that as unconstitutional. (and rightly so) You can't have it both ways, we either have natural rights and liberty with a limited government or we have tyranny either by political aristocrats or by mob mentality of democracy.

    Should homosexual rights and laws that protect them be open for "interpretation" and suddenly in the future mean it is Ok to outlaw, persecute, and prosecute them for what to them is a natural right?
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-17-2011 at 09:26 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I saw the speed limit on the free way the other day as 70 MPH, I guess that's interpretive though, since my motorcycle speedometer goes over 160 this limitation must have been written for someone else who doesn't possess the power and means to go twice that speed and so must not apply to me.

    (Thought I'd use a simple illustration to refute the constitution is "interpretive" argument.)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Just one small correction: SCOTUS findings are not the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law and always has been.

    SCOTUS role is supposed to be deciding whether or not a law or action is constitutionally valid.

    For what it is worth, both of those were gleaned from my wife's citizenship studies. I would suggest that there are people on this forum and in our country who would do well to download and study those citizenship questions. I was born here, lived most of my life here, served in our armed forces, and I still learned a lot from her studies.

    As far as the present occupant of the White House: My memory goes back to Harry S. Truman and the only presidents who come close to being as big a total loss were Jimmy Carter and Wm. Jefferson Clinton. Of those two, Clinton was the worst. Carter was well-meaning, but indecisive and even timid when it came to wielding the power of his office.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Who interprets the constitution? The people. Ultimately if the people feel strongly enough and the government disagrees over what the constitution means its tough luck for the government because the people have the right to alter or to abolish it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Who interprets the constitution? The people. Ultimately if the people feel strongly enough and the government disagrees over what the constitution means its tough luck for the government because the people have the right to alter or to abolish it.
    Not interpret, change by ammendment. There is a difference.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Just one small correction: SCOTUS findings are not the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law and always has been.

    SCOTUS role is supposed to be deciding whether or not a law or action is constitutionally valid.

    For what it is worth, both of those were gleaned from my wife's citizenship studies. I would suggest that there are people on this forum and in our country who would do well to download and study those citizenship questions. I was born here, lived most of my life here, served in our armed forces, and I still learned a lot from her studies.

    As far as the present occupant of the White House: My memory goes back to Harry S. Truman and the only presidents who come close to being as big a total loss were Jimmy Carter and Wm. Jefferson Clinton. Of those two, Clinton was the worst. Carter was well-meaning, but indecisive and even timid when it came to wielding the power of his office.
    Yes SCOTUS was never meant to define what is constitutional only determine if a government law usurped it.

    Your assessment of presidents show your political bias. George Bush disregaurded many aspects of the constitution. Along with many other "republican" presidents. This is not just a "democrat" phenomenon.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Yaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Salinas, California
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    This pseudo-president has gotten our country in to more debt than we will ever be able to get out of!
    No your Bush got us in this mess. Either you were in a coma for 8 years of Bush/Cheney or you are blind to reality. If it ws the latter glad your ok now...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Yaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Salinas, California
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    He should have already been impeached for violating the War Powers Resolution, in Libya.


    I'm sure you said the same thing about Bush correct? If I recall he did some serious lying about WMD's. Illegally had phones tapped, strectched out military thin, made it legal to feel the bodies of little kids and the sick, the elderly and you now cry about Lybia? Hey lets be thanful we have free speech right...

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaki View Post
    I'm sure you said the same thing about Bush correct? If I recall he did some serious lying about WMD's. Illegally had phones tapped, strectched out military thin, made it legal to feel the bodies of little kids and the sick, the elderly and you now cry about Lybia? Hey lets be thanful we have free speech right...
    Since you're nothing more than an Obot troll I'll address your glaring stupidity quickly. First of all, your moonbat messiah overspent 4 trillion in 2 years, as opposed to Bush's over budget of 8 trillion in 8 years. Secondly, REAL CONSERVATIVES opposed many of Bush's spending programs, and a lot more people oppose Obozo's. Bush was no conservative, neither was his father. Hopefully the Bush/neocon grip on the party can be completely undermined and these elitist twits can join their friends in the democrap party.

    There were WMD's found in Iraq, whether you like it or not. Sure there wasn't the volume Gen. Powell told the UN there was, but Saddam was hidding some from inspectors, and continued to thwart UN inspectors as well as violate the 1991 ceasefire. Like it or not, the war was justified a hell of a lot more than the Libyan nonsense.

    The TSA molestation issue began with Obozo's DHS secretary, not Bush's.

    Your moonbat messiah had a supermajority in the senate, and his comrades controlled the house. Yet NOT ONE THING YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT FROM THE BUSH ADMIN HAS CHANGED!!! The only thing that changed during those 2 years is higher unemployment, higher gas prices, the debt raised %50, and a healthcare law that was so reviled the 2010 elections nearly swept out every democrap. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    If ignorance is bliss, why are liberals always so miserable?
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    How did you know that I shop Craigslist 'free stuff' all the time? 'It' must have been created by a Liberal.
    The wife used to get on that all the time too. I'm glad she stopped. We both got tired of dragging other people's crap away for them. She's not a liberal by any stretch of the word though, since she would look for things people WANTED to give away, instead of demanding someone else take it, and then give to her. That's the difference.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaki View Post
    I'm sure you said the same thing about Bush correct? If I recall he did some serious lying about WMD's. Illegally had phones tapped, strectched out military thin, made it legal to feel the bodies of little kids and the sick, the elderly and you now cry about Lybia? Hey lets be thanful we have free speech right...
    When it turned out Bush was telling the truth about not stealing the oil there was nothing left I liked about Bush's policies other than ignoring the UN. Just because a right wing progressive causes trouble does not make it ok for another to make things worse. Oh and don't forget only 6 of those years had a republican house. Nancy and Harry were passing the laws for two of those years and two years after. And as for the RINOs who didn't fix things when they had the chance, well many of them are not in congress any more. In case you haven't noticed the new house majority was not from an influx of RINOs like Newt, who lacked the backbone to take on problems and chose to just hand out more freebies.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    SNIP Obama going to ignore the law again?
    Well, of course he is. The law isn't self-enforcing. Somebody has to enforce it. It is very hard to enforce certain laws on or against the President.

    He knows which he can bend, which he can break, and which ones he might not get away with violating.



    Separately, I think the discussion about the constitution being interpretive is missing something.

    The constitution is entirely open to interpretation. That is exactly how the fedgov has gotten away with its nonsense for years and years and years. There are too many "loopholes" in it that admit of various interpretations. And, there are not enough serious penalties against violators.

    For example, the Supreme Court squeezed in "implied powers" long ago. So, now we've got express powers, delegated powers, and implied powers. Well, that implied powers doctrine really opened the door. But, where is the clause in the constitution that forbade implied powers? There isn't one. Woulda been nice.

    Penalties against violators. If the Founders were really serious about checks and balances, they could have written some really strong stuff. For example, "Any President who starts military action against another country shall be removed from office immediately." Suitably polished up to allow defensive measures while Congress is in recess or whatever.

    Or, for example, whenever a Congress borrows money except during an acute national emergeny, that Congress' subsequent acts--every single one--shall be without force. The Supreme Court shall have no authority to interpret any such act as binding. The President shall have no power to execute or enforce any such act. Unless passed by a later Congress and after the borrowed money has been paid by the yes-voting legislators themselves out of their own pockets. Any officer of any department who enforces such law on a citizen of the several States shall himself be open to suit for damages in the courts of the State wherein his crime is committed. And, no citizen shall be held to answer for using force to repel his unlawful actions.

    Or, how about, "Congress shall have no power to delegate its authority to another entity. Any such delegation renders laws and regulations arising therefrom null. Any officer or employ who enforces such against any citizen of the several States..."

    You see. There are not nearly enough limitations in the Constitution. The darn thing is wide open to interpretation. And has way, way too few mechanisms to enforce against violations.

    Oh, noz! The fedgov would be neutered! Anarchy would reign! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like all the state governments would vanish.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-17-2011 at 09:19 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ............ where is the clause in the constitution that forbade implied powers? There isn't one. Woulda been nice..........
    Actually, there is one:

    Amendment X
    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.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 07-18-2011 at 02:07 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Actually, there is one:

    Amendment X
    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.
    This is my point, ETF. That clause does not prohibit implied powers. You and I can go around beating the table for another millenia that it does; but, just as easily some power-hungry senator with a favor to pay can say it does not. "Well, if express powers and implied powers exist, then both express powers and implied powers must have been delegated."

    Also, the whole point of implied powers is to assert that implied powers are delegated, too.

    Just because I want the car to start doesn't mean it will if the battery is dead, or the starter brushes are shot. Just because we want that clause to operate to prevent broadening power, does not mean that it does.



    On a side note, I saw recently a wonderful explanation for the creation of the UN: the Mafia has an ethnicity requirement for admission to its gang.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-18-2011 at 02:21 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Only because in their grasp of power they ignored the fact that the constitution, limits the powers the government has to 18 items.

    I don't think the founders foresaw, even the almost immediate grasp for power those in positions of "authority" would reach for, eg. like the power the SCOTUS granted themselves.

    The English law if it isn't illegal it's legal is not supposed to apply to a constitutionally limited government but only to citizenry.

    Just my thoughts on it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •