• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nobama going ot ignore the law again????

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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.:lol:
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
This pseudo-president has gotten our country in to more debt than we will ever be able to get out of!:banghead:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:shocker: 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:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.:rolleyes:

(Thought I'd use a simple illustration to refute the constitution is "interpretive" argument.)
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Yaki

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
94
Location
Salinas, California
This pseudo-president has gotten our country in to more debt than we will ever be able to get out of!:banghead:

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...
 

Yaki

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
94
Location
Salinas, California
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...
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
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?
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
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.
 
Top