You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘US Constitution’ tag.
July 1, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, debt ceiling, Fourteenth Amendment, US Constitution, US Debt | Leave a comment
It is amazing how they trash the Constitution, and then cite it as well:
News) — As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation’s debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told The Huffington Post this week that he’s part of a group of lawmakers now examining whether, in the case that debt negotiations fail, the Treasury could ignore Congress and continue paying its bills on time.
“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Coons told Huffington Post reporters Ryan Grim and Samuel Haass. “[I]t’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’”
Critics of the debt limit cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment is open to wide, and varying, interpretation and debate. The most basic question here is, does a limit on debt “question” the “validity” of the debt?
June 29, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, immigration reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, failed leadership, Herman Cain, Michelle Obama, Obama Apology Tour, US Constitution | 1 comment
March 20, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Family values, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, impeachment, Libya, Louis Farrakhan, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Separation of Powers, US Constitution, war powers | 15 comments
The Constitution establishes a separation of powers to provide a “checks and balances” for a reason: The framers did NOT want another Monarchy.
From the most loyal of Democrats this weekend, the question has been posed over and over again, as to whether President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority in committing the United States resources to Operation Odyssey Dawn (where did that name come from).
The President stated in his speech that he had consulted with his National Security team, and with the United Nations, and that he had met with a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators. But did he need the “consent” of Congress? Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has gone as far as to suggest that the POTUS mat have committed an impeachable offense!
And then there is the Arab League, who urged the No-Fly zone, and after the commital of resources from the US, UK, France, etc., are now condemning the action. Is there a reason why the US weighed in so quickly in the peaceful demonstrations in Egypt, but kept a low-profile as the bloodshed occurred at the hands of Quaddafi, as the Libyan citizens pleadded for international help, much like the Iranians did when Obama turned a deaf ear? Is Obama’s response to the Libyan matter, which has even drawn the ire of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tied to his longtime association with the ev. Jeremiah Wright, who is tied to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Quaddafi? Farrakhan has spoken out vehemently at Obama’s actions in the past few days, criticizing him for any statements or involvement in the Libyan matter.
Using Rev. Wright’s words, perhaps the “chickens have come home to roost” in Obama’s world, and his past is now becoming his present, and no longer being able to “vote present”, he must decide exactly where his allegiances lie!
Can You Visualize the Uproar of a Pres. Palin Announcing that She Doesn’t Think Roe v. Wade is Constitutional and Won’t Defend It?
February 24, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Christianity, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, President Palin, Roe v. Wade, US Constitution, US Supreme Court | 2 comments
I can see the heads of the left exploding in unison.
I can hear the talking heads screaming from the rooftops.
There would be calls for impeachment!
Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, the “decree” from Pres. Obama regarding how his Administration will handle the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in the future is a bold swipe at crossing the borders of the separations of powers. If he is not called out on it, it will create a precedence for future Presidents.
IMHO, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is intent on remaining on the Court because, despite her liberal positions, even Obama is too liberal for her likings!
February 23, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, same sex marriage, US Constitution | Leave a comment
The White House has announced that they will no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which Bill Clinton signed into law 15 years ago. It seems that “King Obama” has deemed the law “unconstitutional”. The last time I checked, Obama was elected to the Presidency, not appointed to the Supreme Court, and it is NOT his role to determine if a law is or is not constitutional.
So Obama is willing to defend his blatantly unconstitutional health care legislation, but refuses to defend a law that has been on the books for 15 years.
How does the White House enforce the DOMA, but not defend it?
Is this a “distraction” from jobs, the debt ceiling, the budget?
January 31, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, DHS, individual mandate, Judge Vinson, ObamaCare, Tea Party Movement, universal healthcare, US Constitution | 3 comments
From the Vinson ruling:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failingto engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.
January 31, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, climate change, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, Founding Fathers, liberals, ObamaCare, progressives, US Constitution | 2 comments
January 18, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Commerce Clause, ObamaCare, repeal Obamacare, Sheila Jackson Lee, US Constitution | 3 comments
NOW She’s concerned about the Constitution:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, said on Tuesday afternoon that repealing the national health care law would violate the Constitution.
Arguing that the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional basis for ObamaCare, Jackson Lee said repealing the law by passing Republicans’ H.R. 2 violates both the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process,” she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. “That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.
for full article:
January 12, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Christianity, Family values, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, Capt. Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords, Tragedy in Tucson, US Constitution | 1 comment
Doctors say that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords continues to make improvements, and they remain cautiously optimistic about the strides she has made thus far. They note that she is still not out of the woods, but each passing day lessens the concerns over swelling, etc.
Last night, her family released a couple of photos……. and they say it all:
January 7, 2011 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: Charles Krauthammer, flag burning, US Constitution | 1 comment
In the Constitution, conservatives have found a potent symbol.
For decades, Democrats and Republicans fought over who owns the American flag. Now, they’re fighting over who owns the Constitution.
The flag debates began during the Vietnam era when leftist radicals made the fatal error of burning it. For decades since, non-suicidal liberals have tried to undo the damage. Demeaningly, and somewhat unfairly, they are forever having to prove their fealty to the flag.
Amazingly, though, some still couldn’t get it quite right. During the last presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama, when asked why he was not wearing a flag pin, answered that it represented “a substitute” for “true patriotism.” Bad move. Months later, Obama quietly beat a retreat and returned to wearing the flag on his lapel. He does so still.
Today, the issue is the Constitution. It’s a healthier debate because flags are pure symbolism and therefore more likely to evoke pure emotion and ad hominem argument. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a document that speaks. It defines concretely the nature of our social contract. Nothing in our public life is more substantive.