Beto O’Rourke Not Sure the Constitution Still Works

Your inability to read is not my problem. The UN has fulfilled the mission which I posted. If that isn't enough accomplishment for you that is your problem. But if you need a list on individual actions you can find them here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions

 

Ukraine comes to mind.

 

And what action would you have supported?

 

I'm not sure what Obama has to do with this conversation.
Oh wait, sorry. We aren't allowed to bring up the NSA under him, trading 5 terrorists for a traitor, blaming terror attacks on youtube video clips...

Cause it's racist...lol

Oh yes. We believe your fake outrage, Jester. We really do

 

The Constitution is designed to be changed when needed. There is nothing wrong with amendments. And the Electoral College has certainly failed. It was their job to refuse to put a rogue thug like trump in office. The safety valve failed.

What is dangerous is abusing Constitutional powers; for example shutting down the government if you can't have your way.

What is dangerous is suggesting that there will be a civil war if made to account for his crimes.

 

Your right to protest has failed. It leads to riots, injuries, and death. The constitution needs to be changed to prevent you from protesting so that property and people are protected.

 

Sorry but you cannot hide your traitor behind Obama forever. Eventually you will have to take responsibility for your actions. Obama is two years gone and America did just fine under his presidency. Now you have your man who seems determined to undermine every alliance and treaty that has made America the leader of the free world. An inconvenient fact for Trump supporters but a fact none the less.

Want to dance. Give us one treaty, alliance, negotiation or agreement that has strengthened America's leadership role in the world under Trump. And his love affair with Kim doesn't count.

 

How do we hide Obama behind Obama? Your deflection makes no sense. It makes about as much sense as the time Obama traded 5 terrorist commanders for a US traitor.

 

And the founding fathers made it extremely difficult to do so because they feared politicians like O'Rourke

It worked exactly as planned, the states elected the new president.

No the Constitution says nothing about a budget and Congress passing one, that is statutory but it does charge the President with our national security and if the Democrats would rather shutdown the government to block his lawful attempts to do so ball in their court. Maybe the Constitution should be changed so the President doesn't have to go through the Congress for national security funding?

What does that specious statement have to do with O'Rourke?

 

I know it's fashionable these days for many of the liberal folks to fancy themselves as wanting to reshape the nation into the utopian socialism they dream of. And every time one of these little shills says something like, "well, no, we don't need to respect the constitution" because it otherwise preclude their little horror from becoming... we should remember them. We shouldn't allow these little slips of honesty to be forgotten. Beto is called Beto because Robert is too "white", and isn't "ethnic" enough for him to wallow in the progressive "authenticity" he so longs for. Robert Francis is just another lily white Irish guy. He isn't the rock feigned "star" he pretends he wants to be.

 

I'm not a fan of either man, and I don't buy this. Trump is at least as bad and likely far worse between his hatred for free speech and his completely unconstitutional tariffs.

 

So what free speech is does he not like? The lying press that hate him and will run anything negative even when it is false?

Tariffs are not unconstitutional since the Congress handed over that power to the President long ago.

You are going to have to do better than that.

 

I just wonder how he could ethically take the oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.

 

I doubt that he could. I wouldn't want to find out.

 

They aren't "unconstitutional" but blame the Democrats and FDR for abdicating that power to the President.

 

Trump has tried to sue people for exercising completely legal free speech and then claimed later that his actual goal was just to punish these people by costing them money (after, of course, he got laughed out of court). He's also proposed "opening up" libel laws to the point that an amendment to the 1st Amendment would be required, which he actually had the WH look into.

1) It is a violation of the separation of powers for any branch of government to fully "hand over" their Constitutional powers to another branch 2) No, they did not hand over those powers to the President 3) Rather than fully handing over their powers, they passed legislation that would allow the President to pass tariffs as the "mere servant" of Congress and under the guidelines they provided. That isn't what Trump has done. Unless you actually believe Volkswagens are a national security threat.

You are going to have to understand the Constitution better than that.

 

The Constitution itself disagrees with you. Sorry.

This falsehood was addressed in post #41. To recap: 1) It is a violation of the separation of powers for any branch of government to fully "hand over" their Constitutional powers to another branch 2) No, they did not hand over those powers to the President 3) Rather than fully handing over their powers, they passed legislation that would allow the President to pass tariffs as the "mere servant" of Congress and under the guidelines they provided. That isn't what Trump has done. Unless you actually believe Volkswagens are a national security threat.

 

When cornered you always bring up Obama just like you did this time.

 

And during the administration of Barack Obama, those that defended his actions would bring up the perceived evils of George Bush as an excuse and justification. And during the administration of George Bush, those that defended his actions would bring up the perceived evils of Bill Clinton.

 

You will need to talk to Congress about that.

 

I've written my representatives about Trump's unconstitutional actions, primarily the illegal tariffs.

 

Good for you. Did you write about Obama's unconstitutional EO on DACA.

 

I did, while reminding my representatives I was very much in favor of the program, but that it needed to come from them.

 

Members of the new Radical DNC always seem to have problems with our Constitution and want to fundamentally change it and our nation. Just look at what they did the moment they took the House....proposed legislation to fundamentally undo what makes us a Republic by overturning the EC, then Nancy wanted to cancel the SOTU.

 

Well I agree with you. That is one of the problems with our system is that the Congress is giving away so much of its power to the executive. The reason they do that is so they do not have to make difficult decisions that might affect someone voting for them.