Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis

Post Reply New Topic

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich ... nt-specter

Watch the video, Newt Gingrich makes some very good points.

No, I don't think we are. If anything we're likely to have a crisis of understanding that most people don't even understand the system or how it works on a fundamental level - which I have a feeling most people will find uncomfortably, run away from, simply consider it a temporary unhappy thought.

As far as any long lasting damage to the constitution though, I don't think that either. He can spout gibberish (off teleprompter perhaps) about his disavowal of the US dollar and his decision from this day forward to replace it with the Euro - it doesn't mean a thing, well... aside from showing that we elected an incoherent leader which, in the actual case as well, we really need to do some soul-searching.

BTW - one more comment.... wow, the interviewer was a jackass, wouldn't stop asking about impeachment.

Actually, the interviewer may have a point we may start to see articles of impeachment, Obama is already in contempt of court. He's acting like he is a king and he isn't.

Well the DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional. See Article 4, Section 1.

Gingrich talking about the constitution, give me a break

Where was the "constitutional crisis" when Bush made the PATRIOT ACT? Where was the "constitutional crisis" during every illegal war we've had since WWII? Where was the "constitutional crisis" during this supposed "War on Drugs" the last 40 years that currently has 500,000 non-violent drug offenders falsely imprisoned?

Inuyasha, I suggest you take a long hard look at the guys you're supporting. If you are truly a principled conservative and constitutionalist, you must be excessively cautious of the deceivers and try your best to avoid falling into unprincipled partisan hackery just for the sack of winning.

That is for a court to decide, not the President. Congress passes laws and laws are constitutional until such time as the courts decide otherwise.

ruveyn

Agreed, the President can't just arbitrarily pick and choose what laws to follow. Furthermore he's been found in contempt of court for not following another law he doesn't like cause it interfere's with his "Green energy" scam and violating a court order to top that off.



How was the Iraq War Illegal? Last I checked Congress authorized it, how was the war in Afghanistan illegal? Furthermore, drug offenders can easily turn violent granted I would say they need rehab while incarcerated, but I'm not buying people just turn all mellow when hopped up on a high powered stimulant for instance.



Uh, I have taken a long hard look into the people I support, and I've taken a long hard look at the individual you support. In my opinion, Ron Paul is about as bad as Obama, back when the founding fathers were alive we had an ocean between us and Europe where it could take weeks even monthes for anyone to send anything at us. These days, it takes minutes, hours, days at most, for an attack to occur. Ron Paul would quite frankly have let the Soviet Union conquer Europe because we shouldn't get involved. Obama and Ron Paul are a lot alike in foreign policy.

While you may be buying the song and dance that there would be some sort of paradise with drugs no longer being illegal would be paradise, I don't. We have enough problems with alcohol (though it is so intertwined with culture that it would be hard to make it illegal), we don't need to legalize more stuff for people to abuse.

There is precedent for a President refusing to enforce laws. And Obama isn't even doing that; he is just declining to defend this particular law when it is challenged in the courts.


It was in violation of international law and treaties to which we are a signatory, and by the US Constitution any treaty duly entered into by the President and the Senate is the law of the land.


How is that? Obama is quite similar to Bush in foreign policy.

Uh, under his responsibilities as President he has to, the only reason he's doing this is really just to cater to his constituents.



Yes and no, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Furthermore, there were a bunch of UN resolutions that Saddam was in violation of and he was supporting terrorist attacks against a US ally. Furthermore, his forces was shooting at US aircraft on a daily basis (also an act of war).

Furthermore, I don't see you calling for Chirac to be arrested for violating the UN sanctions and selling hardware to Saddam. Remember the Oil for Food scam.



Bush wouldn't have left American citizens at risk like Obama in Libya.

No actually refusal to enforce is one of the implicit powers of the executive branch. This is checked by the legislatives right to impeachment. That you disagree with his use of executive power is irrelevant to whether or not he has them.

He has no obligation to fight this in court, though, and that is all he has refused to do.

And if you're so upset about something like this, please feel free to explain to me why Bush's signing statements were OK.


Not "yes and no." Yes. Our Constitution is explicit: any treaties we are a party to are the supreme law of the land, mentioned in the same sentence with the US Constitution itself. See Article 6.

For someone who constantly shouts about the Constitution, you really are staggeringly ignorant of what it actually says.


The UN did not back the decision to invade. The resolutions violated were not of a serious enough nature to justify war. And what terrorist acts are you referring to?


Source? I would think this would have been talked about quite a bit more.


Chirac isn't from my country. By all means, the French should prosecute him if he has violated their laws. How about Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal?


You have no evidence for that assertion. But I was referring to broader patterns. Obama has followed Bush's established plans on Iraq to the letter, and he has escalated in Afghanistan. At no point has he adopted the sort of foreign policy his supporters wanted, nor has he adopted policies that look anything like what Ron Paul promotes.

All involved were pardoned by HW Bush.

I'm still unsure about whether he funded and armed terrorists in the middle east since Mujahideen could either refer to terrorists or freedom fighters, but the Contras were known scumbags. And yeah Obama seems a lot more interventionist than Ron Paul.

Explain to me why it isn't. Also if you use the discrimination argument you've opened up a whole other can of worms from a legal standpoint.

As to why it is has to do with societial framework in which a couple gets together to produce children and then having a stable household for said children. Two guys can't produce a child on their own.



A treaty does not trump the Constitution, that is why Constitution is mentioned before treaties. By your statement you claim that any treaty that is made and law passed can overrule the constitution and that is incorrect.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Si ... nstitution



Uh backing attacks on Israel for starters, he also attempted to have a former US President assassinated.



It didn't fit the mainstream media's narrative.

U.K. and U.S. aircraft fly patrol missions over Iraq an average of 18 days each month. By the end of November 2002, coalition forces have flown 106 days in the Northern No-Fly Zone. In 2001, they flew 146 days over northern Iraq and in 2000, they flew 164 days. Nearly every mission, they are under fire and threatened by elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. Anti-aircraft-artillery fire is the most common threat and is usually seen firing from two to five different locations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... _watch.htm



There is no evidence that Reagan was involved, furthermore if the left claims he was suffering from Alzheimers while he was in office they can't also claim he committed perjury.



Actually I do have 2 examples where he left American Citizen's in harm's way.
1. Libya where many countries had these large ships ferrying their citizen's to safety where Obama sent a small ship that couldn't even leave port for a while due to the sea being "rough." All cause Obama didn't want to offend anyone.

2. Pakistan, where an individual from our embassy was attacked ended up killing one of his attackers and is now in a Pakistani jail waiting for execution. This is in violation of international law (diplomatic immunity), but Obama doesn't want to offend anyone.

Oh Jesus...

Do you know anything about Ron Paul? or anything about Obama for that matter? Orwell is exactly right about Obama and Bush being similar on foreign policy, the only difference is in tone. Obama has continued the Iraq War, expanded the Afghan war, expanded our secret war in Pakistan, secretly started a bombing campaign in Yemen, kept Guantanamo Bay open, extended the PATRIOT Act, kept Admiral Mullen as Chief Of Staff, kept Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Our foreign policy never changes from president to president. Obama is a nation builder, Bush was a nation builder, Clinton was a nation builder. Obama doesn't publicly support electroding the testicles of prisoners of war(at least not in US custody)? What a pacifist puss! Let us not forget who started the bailouts and supported amnesty. There is very little tangible difference between the two.

The Iraq war was illegal even when you don't recognize international law because the congress does not have the authority to delegate it's responsibilities to the executive branch which it did with the "authorization for the use of force on Iraq". Declaring war is the sole responsibility of the US congress. Of course saying that, 90% of what our government has done the last 150+ years is unconstitutional.

Saying Ron Paul is an isolationist and or a pacifist is completely wrong. He believes when we go to war we declare it, win, and go home. He believes what Thomas Jefferson believed, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Dr. Paul is non-interventionist and believes we shouldn't involve ourselves in the domestic affairs of other countries.

Waging wars of aggression and conquest have no place in conservatism. It's the most fiscally irresponsible thing a country can do and ALWAYS results in the growth of government and the loss of civil liberties. You support big government if you support this.

As for the drug war, where in the constitution does it say that the government has the authority to say what we can and can not put in our body? It doesn't exist. Also, maybe the reason drug offenders turn violent is because they're locked up with murders, rapists, and thieves? Much like prohibition of alcohol gave rise to the mafia in this country, the war on drugs have gave rise to the violent gang culture that plagues our inner cities and the drug cartels that murder thousands of people all over the world but particularly on our very own border with Mexico. Treating drug use as crime is what makes these people branch out tho do real crimes.

Also, don't get ahead of yourself with Libya. I suspect that if this drags out we may very well see NATO or UN troops occupying that country.

I agree 100%, though I'll have to say drug offenders can be violent just cuz they're simply hedonistic pricks who tend to be overindulgent and selfish.