A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never.

[stephanie]

:clap:

by Laura Hollis

Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.


read it all and comments..
http://townhall.com/columnists/LauraHollis/2008/10/29/a_president_who_wont_uphold_the_constitution_never ?page=full&comments=true#comments

[5stringJeff]

We haven't followed the Constitution since about 1848...

[Kathianne]

We haven't followed the Constitution since about 1848...

and Barr will prove different. Why didn't he as a multi-term rep?

[5stringJeff]

and Barr will prove different. Why didn't he as a multi-term rep?

He has since had a major change of heart, sworn off his old politics, and developed a new political philosophy. Meanwhile, McCain and Obama both want to give out a couple trillion dollars to the people who caused the boom/bust in the first place. Where is that authorized in the Constitution?

[Kathianne]

He has since had a major change of heart, sworn off his old politics, and developed a new political philosophy. Meanwhile, McCain and Obama both want to give out a couple trillion dollars to the people who caused the boom/bust in the first place. Where is that authorized in the Constitution?

and Lieberman is now a conservative. Give me a break.

[Yurt]

He has since had a major change of heart, sworn off his old politics, and developed a new political philosophy. Meanwhile, McCain and Obama both want to give out a couple trillion dollars to the people who caused the boom/bust in the first place. Where is that authorized in the Constitution?

is it possible to develope a new political philosophy out of the ashes of an old political philosophy?

[DragonStryk72]

is it possible to develope a new political philosophy out of the ashes of an old political philosophy?

Well, Libertarianism worked for our founders, I mean, I think we can look at what they left behind and go, "Okay, that's a decent job." Sometimes, to move forward, you need to move backward, look at the problem from the outside, and take a new direction. You don't think he took up the LP for it's soaring political power, do you?

[theHawk]

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”



That statement really hits the nail on the head for the way Obama thinks. The Constitution is full of "constraints" that need to be broken. This is how he views the Constitution, its a roadblock, it is a problem, it is an obsticle.

There is no doubt that Obama is a closet communist that despises that freedoms that are protected in the Constitution. He doesn't see that Constitution as something that protects citizens rights, he views it as something that constrains government. He is right, it does constrain the government, but he seems to be oblivious to the fact that thats exactly what the Founding Fathers fully intended.

[Kathianne]

That statement really hits the nail on the head for the way Obama thinks. The Constitution is full of "constraints" that need to be broken. This is how he views the Constitution, its a roadblock, it is a problem, it is an obsticle.

There is no doubt that Obama is a closet communist that despises that freedoms that are protected in the Constitution. He doesn't see that Constitution as something that protects citizens rights, he views it as something that constrains government. He is right, it does constrain the government, but he seems to be oblivious to the fact that thats exactly what the Founding Fathers fully intended.

I don't see the 'closet communist' in these comments. I do in others, but not closet.

Why is LA Times hiding that video?

[emmett]

Good question! You can be sure that if contained even a hint at some damning information about a right sider it would be playing over and over again on the US Government News Network of CBS< NBC< ABC< MSNBC and CNN.

[Kathianne]

Good question! You can be sure that if contained even a hint at some damning information about a right sider it would be playing over and over again on the US Government News Network of CBS< NBC< ABC< MSNBC and CNN.

Converse. They are hiding for some reason, perhaps Obama quote against Isreal? Likely.

[emmett]

Well, Libertarianism worked for our founders, I mean, I think we can look at what they left behind and go, "Okay, that's a decent job." Sometimes, to move forward, you need to move backward, look at the problem from the outside, and take a new direction. You don't think he took up the LP for it's soaring political power, do you?


Another good question. How about an answer from one of you Anti-Libertarians! tell us how Bob Barr is a power hungary player in the political arena. Tell us how he is not fully aware that changing his direction in the way of more liberty and less government would be risky. How about some substance in your debate points as to something other than he "used to" because what he "used to" be is exactly what you righties wish to God you had in John Mccain right now!

As a Rep Bob Barr fought for the Bill of Rights and Americans Liberties. He went after Bill Clinton, a lying ass scoundrel of a president who lied to cover his ass. YOu guys cheered him then and bragged of his skill and technique. Everyone considered him the "leader" in that effort,

Bob Barr is big enough to admit he was wrong about the Patriot Act! How many politicians have you known in your lives who have stood up and admitted being wrong? What an attribute! I KNOW ONE!!!! Bob Barr! He admitted he was wrong about medical marijuana and other topics as well.


Give me a president who is willing to stand up and admit he has changed his mind and moved toward civil liberty any day than some political hack who just happens to adjust his agenda at election time. John McCain is one of the most liberal Republicans in politics and everybody here knows it! He's just all you have. He won the damn nomination because he benefited from his opponets all being more conservative than he was and bumping heads and stealing each others support. The man didn't poll 8% of GOP voters nationwide going in. Hell....Fred Thompson had more GOP support than he did.

Bob Barr believes strongly in what he stands for. He has taken great political risk to stand for these things and I admire that very much. He is far more qualified to be president than either John McCain or Barack Obama and that is why I tingled when I pushed the Libertarian button today on the damn screen and I am so damn proud of it I could shout it out right now.

[April15]

A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never. We have had that for 8 years already!

[Immanuel]

Forgive me for trying to be grammatically correct, but doesn't "A candidate who won't uphold the Constitution? Never!" actually mean that the candidate will uphold the Constitution? Double negatives and all?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note:

Obama made a promise on Wednesday night, that I believe he will keep. He said, "I won't be a perfect President." I believe he'll keep that promise.

Immie

[Little-Acorn]

A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never. We have had that for 8 years already!

Correction: 75 years.

Social Security, for example, is flatly unconstitutional. Likewise Welfare, the EPA, Dept of Education, OSHA, govt Affirmative Action, and a host of other programs.

Leftists who support such programs, of course, have long had a habit of pointing to Supreme Court cases approving some of those programs, and insisting that "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!"

Since the USSC's ruling striking down the DC gun ban and declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unrelated to any military or militia service, the liberals haven't been saying that much any more. Seems they now don't hold the Supremes as the final arbiter on these cases any longer. Wisdom comes to us all, sooner or later.

The govt hasn't upheld much of the Constitution, for several generations now (or longer)., though they do support a few parts of it. It's always a hoot to hear liberals (whose entire agenda is basically unconstitutional) complaining about Republicans supporting some of the same unconstitutional programs they do.

[DragonStryk72]

That statement really hits the nail on the head for the way Obama thinks. The Constitution is full of "constraints" that need to be broken. This is how he views the Constitution, its a roadblock, it is a problem, it is an obsticle.

There is no doubt that Obama is a closet communist that despises that freedoms that are protected in the Constitution. He doesn't see that Constitution as something that protects citizens rights, he views it as something that constrains government. He is right, it does constrain the government, but he seems to be oblivious to the fact that thats exactly what the Founding Fathers fully intended.

Actually, strangely enough, he shares that thought with Bush, who has continually tried to go beyond the limits of what the Constitution allows him to do. If your main argument is that you are too hemmed in by the Constitution, then you don't understand the office you're going after. First off, the Founders didn't even want a presidency at first, it was a concession for them to put that office in. The thing they worried about on the subject of having a single ruler at the top rung was that they did not want him to become an "elected king", hence why they made certain to pile on the checks and balances to the government, to be sure that no one group could rule without the support of the others, and in so doing, ensure the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people.

[DragonStryk72]

Forgive me for trying to be grammatically correct, but doesn't "A candidate who won't uphold the Constitution? Never!" actually mean that the candidate will uphold the Constitution? Double negatives and all?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note:

Obama made a promise on Wednesday night, that I believe he will keep. He said, "I won't be a perfect President." I believe he'll keep that promise.

Immie

Actually, no, seeing as the two negatives are not a part of the same sentence structure, one being a question, and the next being a statement. Also, the blatant sarcastic context of it needs to be taken into account as well.

[Immanuel]

Actually, no, seeing as the two negatives are not a part of the same sentence structure, one being a question, and the next being a statement. Also, the blatant sarcastic context of it needs to be taken into account as well.

I know that. Also, what it is saying is really, "Elect a President that won't uphold the Constitution? We'll never agree to that!"

But, the way I read it first was as I had commented in my initial post.

Immie

[OCA]

:clap:

by Laura Hollis

Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.


read it all and comments..
http://townhall.com/columnists/LauraHollis/2008/10/29/a_president_who_wont_uphold_the_constitution_never ?page=full&comments=true#comments

Why never? We allowed Bush to shred the constitution for the past 8 years, why not someone else too?

[April15]

Correction: 75 years.

Social Security, for example, is flatly unconstitutional. Likewise Welfare, the EPA, Dept of Education, OSHA, govt Affirmative Action, and a host of other programs.

Leftists who support such programs, of course, have long had a habit of pointing to Supreme Court cases approving some of those programs, and insisting that "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!"

Since the USSC's ruling striking down the DC gun ban and declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unrelated to any military or militia service, the liberals haven't been saying that much any more. Seems they now don't hold the Supremes as the final arbiter on these cases any longer. Wisdom comes to us all, sooner or later.

The govt hasn't upheld much of the Constitution, for several generations now (or longer)., though they do support a few parts of it. It's always a hoot to hear liberals (whose entire agenda is basically unconstitutional) complaining about Republicans supporting some of the same unconstitutional programs they do.

You do have some good points at which I am not prepared to argue at this time.

[5stringJeff]

Correction: 75 years.

Social Security, for example, is flatly unconstitutional. Likewise Welfare, the EPA, Dept of Education, OSHA, govt Affirmative Action, and a host of other programs.

Leftists who support such programs, of course, have long had a habit of pointing to Supreme Court cases approving some of those programs, and insisting that "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!"

Since the USSC's ruling striking down the DC gun ban and declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unrelated to any military or militia service, the liberals haven't been saying that much any more. Seems they now don't hold the Supremes as the final arbiter on these cases any longer. Wisdom comes to us all, sooner or later.

The govt hasn't upheld much of the Constitution, for several generations now (or longer)., though they do support a few parts of it. It's always a hoot to hear liberals (whose entire agenda is basically unconstitutional) complaining about Republicans supporting some of the same unconstitutional programs they do.

Another correction: 2008-1860 = 148 years. Abe Lincoln didn't give a rip about the Constitution, or the fact that states could leave voluntarily. He acted unconstitutionally in order to "save the Union," which was nothing more than ensuring a steady flow of tariffs into the US Treasury.

[bullypulpit]

:clap:

by Laura Hollis

Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.


read it all and comments..
http://townhall.com/columnists/LauraHollis/2008/10/29/a_president_who_wont_uphold_the_constitution_never ?page=full&comments=true#comments

This is so stupid it is laughable. If you watched the debates, who was wearing a flag pin on his lapel? Obama, not McCain. Who is was the professor of constitutioal law? Obama, not McCain. Whose president, administration and and party has worked assiduously to undermine the Constitution for the last eight years? Bush, his administration and the GOP, which McCain has supported for the last eight years, not Obama.

[stephanie]

This is so stupid it is laughable. If you watched the debates, who was wearing a flag pin on his lapel? Obama, not McCain. Who is was the professor of constitutioal law? Obama, not McCain. Whose president, administration and and party has worked assiduously to undermine the Constitution for the last eight years? Bush, his administration and the GOP, which McCain has supported for the last eight years, not Obama.

bull..

you and your buddies are great at spinning what the little Marxist has said..but not all the American people are as stupid as you all hope..

[bullypulpit]

bull..

you and your buddies are great at spinning what the little Marxist has said..but not all the American people are as stupid as you all hope..

The Cold War has been over for some time now dearie, and marxism has been debunked for even longer. The bandying about of epithets such as "Marxist!" shows just how intellectually bankrupt the GOP and its apologists truly are. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

The Cold War has been over for some time now dearie, and marxism has been debunked for even longer. The bandying about of epithets such as "Marxist!" shows just how intellectually bankrupt the GOP and its apologists truly are. :laugh2:

the cold war is now being fought in iraq.....soon to be moved to the mountains of afganistan.......

i agree he is not a marxist...he reminds me more of nazi party rehtoric of the 30's....

[manu1959]

bull..

you and your buddies are great at spinning what the little Marxist has said..but not all the American people are as stupid as you all hope..

the selfishness re-education camps will take care of that....

[Kathianne]

The Cold War has been over for some time now dearie, and marxism has been debunked for even longer. The bandying about of epithets such as "Marxist!" shows just how intellectually bankrupt the GOP and its apologists truly are. :laugh2:

Actually the title of 'Marxist' fits, to the basic philosophy. Without a doubt. Saying no, will not make it so.

[Abbey Marie]

This is so stupid it is laughable. If you watched the debates, who was wearing a flag pin on his lapel? Obama, not McCain. Who is was the professor of constitutioal law? Obama, not McCain. Whose president, administration and and party has worked assiduously to undermine the Constitution for the last eight years? Bush, his administration and the GOP, which McCain has supported for the last eight years, not Obama.

Bully, trust me, there are few people in this country with more of an agenda about the Constitution than Con law professors.

[stephanie]

The Cold War has been over for some time now dearie, and marxism has been debunked for even longer. The bandying about of epithets such as "Marxist!" shows just how intellectually bankrupt the GOP and its apologists truly are. :laugh2:

I really would like to call him the little Hitler..but I won't go that far, yet..

and if you want to see intellectually bankrupt, just look in a mirror..you are getting ready to vote for a guy as President who hates our country, and most of the people in it who happens to have white skin, only because he has a D next to his name..
dearie..

[April15]

I really would like to call him the little Hitler..but I won't go that far, yet..

and if you want to see intellectually bankrupt, just look in a mirror..you are getting ready to vote for a guy as President who hates our country, and most of the people in it who happens to have white skin, only because he has a D next to his name..
dearie..Just read this post.

[stephanie]

Just read this post.

you are another one..

[bullypulpit]

Actually the title of 'Marxist' fits, to the basic philosophy. Without a doubt. Saying no, will not make it so.

Please do show where Obama has advocated government ownership of the means of production. This, after all, is the foundation of Marxist/communist ideology. :cool:

[bullypulpit]

I really would like to call him the little Hitler..but I won't go that far, yet..

and if you want to see intellectually bankrupt, just look in a mirror..you are getting ready to vote for a guy as President who hates our country, and most of the people in it who happens to have white skin, only because he has a D next to his name..
dearie..

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Obama hates America? Please provide some objective and independently verifiable evidence of this. I won't be holding my breath. B'bye now, dearie.

[Kathianne]

Please do show where Obama has advocated government ownership of the means of production. This, after all, is the foundation of Marxist/communist ideology. :cool:

It's a process. National Healthcare being one. Control of media another. Regulating auto production is on the agenda.

[Kathianne]

It's a process. National Healthcare being one. Control of media another. Regulating auto production is on the agenda.

Then there's "Employee Free Choice Act", which would basically be the Feds taking over wage/price controls of industries via union control. It will happen if the Senate has the magic 60.

[stephanie]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Obama hates America? Please provide some objective and independently verifiable evidence of this. I won't be holding my breath. B'bye now, dearie.

what do you need to be kicked in the groin to hear what he says about us citizens (especially if you are white),and the United States..go read some of what he says in his books about typical white people..his wife thinks we are a cruel country, and she has never been proud of it...
just yesterday he told us we were selfish because we didn't want to pay higher taxes..he never has anything positive to say about us or the United States...he's sat in a church where the pastor is a racist and hates this country where it was almost cheering on 9/11..

you can act like he has never said these things, because we know you all don't care.. as long as you can WIN..

Party before country..the Democrat motto..

[bullypulpit]

It's a process. National Healthcare being one. Control of media another. Regulating auto production is on the agenda.

National health care isn't Marxism, it's good sense. Media control lies in the hands, by and large, of corporate interests leaning more towards the right than the left. Government regulation of auto production is nothing new...absent such regulation we wouldn't have seat-belts and air-bags which save American lives every day. By your standards then, is the Bush backed bail-out of Wall Street Marxism?

[bullypulpit]

what do you need to be kicked in the groin to hear what he says about us citizens (especially if you are white),and the United States..go read some of what he says in his books about typical white people..his wife thinks we are a cruel country, and she has never been proud of it...
just yesterday he told us we were selfish because we didn't want to pay higher taxes..he never has anything positive to say about us or the United States...he's sat in a church where the pastor is a racist and hates this country where it was almost cheering on 9/11..

you can act like he has never said these things, because we know you all don't care.. as long as you can WIN..

Party before country..the Democrat motto..

You are simply spouting talking points dearie. Provide evidence, not anecdote, to support your claims. :poke:

[Kathianne]

National health care isn't Marxism, it's good sense. Media control lies in the hands, by and large, of corporate interests leaning more towards the right than the left. Government regulation of auto production is nothing new...absent such regulation we wouldn't have seat-belts and air-bags which save American lives every day. By your standards then, is the Bush backed bail-out of Wall Street Marxism?

Oh most definitely the bail out is Marxism. Marx was wrong about a sudden revolt, it's not been necessary. It creeps and it's 'justified' by those like you. When it proves once again not to work, as today in Europe, hard choices need to be made, but the people just can't muster the energy. It's not where I'd choose to go.

[stephanie]

You are simply spouting talking points dearie. Provide evidence, not anecdote, to support your claims. :poke:


I'm not wasting my time on a waste of time...enjoy your vote for your dear leader..

[bullypulpit]

I'm not wasting my time on a waste of time...enjoy your vote for your dear leader..

:lol:

[stephanie]

:lol:

did you just win a shit eating contest, or what..?

..I'm not digging up shit that you know he has said, you are not worth my time..

[Kathianne]

Oh most definitely the bail out is Marxism. Marx was wrong about a sudden revolt, it's not been necessary. It creeps and it's 'justified' by those like you. When it proves once again not to work, as today in Europe, hard choices need to be made, but the people just can't muster the energy. It's not where I'd choose to go.

Bully, your point about airbags and seatbelts were good ones. I wouldn't ride without them, yet I don't believe the automakers should have been forced to add them, they were going to anyways-it's smart business to keep customers alive. On the other hand, there are those who will never use them, for any variety of reasons-I don't think they should be ticketed, we can't legislate 'smart.'

Same with 'no smoking.' If an owner of a business wants to make that a requirement, certainly. Heck they can say they'll hire only non-smokers, non-drinkers, vegetarians. Their business and good luck.

If another wishes to allow, the customers and potential employees may make up their own minds.

The government is becoming pervasive and I don't care for it.