What is Obama Talking About…?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Swamp_Music, Aug 17, 2011.

  1. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law, it should be upheld without a problem," Obama said in Minnesota during a town hall discussion. "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens."

    Obama – recently on the constitutionally of the “Obamacare” law.​

    What an interesting statement… “If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law…?” Ah, but the Supreme Court is not supposed to follow “existing precedent, (and) existing law” if that precedent clearly goes against the Constitution. After all the Supreme Court Justices all swear the following.

    "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_3.htm

    Justices swear to rule “under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

    Of course a heavily Democrat Congress changed the Oath-of-Office for Supreme Court Justices in 1990. The oath is a matter of federal law. Violating that oath is a crime, and an impeachable offense. Of course Democrats wanted to water it down so Democrat Progressive Justices would not be impeached for violating the oath, and ruling against the Constitution as they MUST to preserve the Democrat Quiet Coup of 1937. If Democrats could take any mention of ruling "under" the Constitution out of the oath they would in a heartbeat.

    Before Democrats changed the oath, Supreme Court Justices had to swear the following.

    "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

    I guess Democrats didn’t like the phrase “that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.” Instead they watered down the requirement that justices must actually follow the Constitution, and replaced the phrase with a simple “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” :roll:

    Obama wants the Supreme Court to follow “existing precedent, (and) existing law” made after FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his “New Deal” unconstitutional. Google the “Switch in Time that Saved Nine.” :puke: All the Democrat wealth distribution and social engineering schemes were built on illegal precedent after FDR threatened the Supreme Court, and they backed done allowing violations of the Constitution. :omfg:

    Ah, but even today the court must rule “under the Constitution and laws of the United States” and yes those laws MUST adhere to the Constitution, or must in fact be Constitutional. There has never been a federal law FORCING anyone to buy a personal product for one’s personal benefit, ever in the history of the country. What laws are Obama talking about, Democrat violations of the Constitution? What “existing precedent(s)” is Obama talking about, ones made AFTER FDR bullied the Supreme Court into allowing Democrat violations of the Constitution? If the Constitution is to be followed Obamacare has no chance. :omg:
     
  2. MissJonelyn

    MissJonelyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't Obama study constitution law or whatever?

    You would think he would know more about the constitution in regards to Obama care.
     
  3. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He was a lecturer on the subject. Though some would say that he was a professor. But, they would be wrong.
     
  4. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Obama studied Constitutional Law like a car thief would study car alarms. :omg:

    He practically admitted as much in a 2001 radio interview. Obama admitted. The Supreme Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,” and that the Constitution does not say what the government must do on someone’s behalf. Well of course the Supreme Court never ventured into “issues of redistribution of wealth” because there is no Constitutional justification, power or legitimate authority to take the wealth of one and give it to another in an effort to “equal" out results. That is the Socialism/Communism model. Yet that is exactly what Obama seeks to do in violation of the Constitution as he well knows. Of course the Constitution does not say (in fact prohibits under the Tenth Amendment) the government doing things for the individual as that would be wealth distribution. If you can’t get an “affordable mortgage” on your own someone else must pay.


    Third Paragraph (Bold for emphasis)

    But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts

     
    Rapunzel and (deleted member) like this.
  5. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would take a bet that Obama has never actually sat down and read the document all the way through. There is no doubt in my mind.
     
  6. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can we read Obama's law articles that he wrote, while running the Harvard Law Review? LOL!


    _
     
  7. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is the part I found fascinating, "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens."

    Ah, manage it? I wonder what our President who believes the Constitution is a seriously flawed document means? The people on the left won't even try to pass a Constitutional Amendment because they knoew the people don't support them and they don't care.
     
  8. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Ubama looks at the Constitution as something to get around and twist into what he wants it to say. He thinks it is a flawed document.

    If he did ever study the Constitution it was for the reasons of learning how to circumvent it. He was raised by commies, I expect nothing less from him. He has no respect for the document except things he can pick out to support his agenda and the rest he would like to (*)(*)(*)(*) can.
     
  9. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama knows very little about the Constitution.

    When it was suggested that the 14th Amendment gave him the authority to raise the debt limit without congressional approval he had to ask his lawyers if he could or not.

    An expert on the Constitution would have already known the answer to that question without having to ask.
     
  10. John1735

    John1735 Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,521
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0


    "What is Obama talking about"...if he knew he wouldn't be the completely incompetent boob he is now would he.

    That said, given this, along with his now infamous 57 states and threat to veto any AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION he doesn't agree with....um lets just say, any parent, that had their child taught by this man, when he was allegedly a professor teaching law, particularly Constitutional law, should demand their money back.​
     
  11. John1735

    John1735 Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,521
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh and you will note ladies and gents, Obama, nor his liberal cronies can point to a single instance in American law, where Congress was granted the authority by the Constitution, or the States, or the People, to mandate by force and penalty of law, that private citizen A, must buy a product good or service from private citizen B.

    So much for Obama's "precedent".

    While lying and simply making things up, in order to create precedent's, might be how these liberals desire for things to work in liberal chutes and ladders.

    Lying to create and simply make legal precedent up, to suit one's own political viewpoint, doesn't count in a real court, in the real world where FACTS not made up liberal lies are what decides "precedent".
     
  12. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When Obama says he will have to "manage that when it happens" he does not mean drop the then violation of the Constitution (Obamacare). He means he will find another way of implementing his unrestrained power grab. :omfg:



    tyr•an•ny   /ˈtɪrəni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee]
    noun, plural -nies.
    1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; :omg: despotic abuse of authority.
    2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

     
  13. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I want an Obama Supporter, a general Leftist to explain what "then we'll have to manage that when it happens" means... :omg:
     
  14. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He doesn't like the Constitution. Another reason he's wrong for the job.
     

Share This Page