Obama's newest plan for circumventing the constitution.

Post Reply New Topic

http://youtu.be/8mPZlysCAm0

Another four years of Obama and we can kiss our liberties good-bye.

ruveyn

Another four years of any US government, and we will all kiss our liberties good bye.

That remains to be seen. However your worries are justified, as are mine.

ruveyn

I do have a feeling that the OP's video is hysterical and conspiracy theorish in nature though.

I mean:

Fema concentration camps have been a stock scare since Katrina times, and didn't get much ever good evidence.

You can find the FEMA camps by following The Black Helicopters.

ruveyn

Obama has been talking about it for a couple years now. The stage was set by the Bush administration for it. I doubt any of the Republican candidates would not go ahead with it, except Paul and possibly Santorum.

The Black Helicopter conspiracy theory?

Let's step back a moment.

Isn't your entire system of "checks and balances" predicated on the notion that government must be capable of responding to circumstances? Congress will create legislation to respond to circumstances, the Executive will seek to act within the framework established by Congress and the Courts will pronounce upon the legality of their efforts.

Constitutional limits are established only when the courts determine them. All of your constitutional history since Hayburn has been an exercise in successive Congresses and Administrations testing the limits of their authority, and the Courts determining whether or not those limits had been breached, or moved.

So, when you title a thread, "Obama's newest plan for circumventing the constitution," you leave open the question of whether the President is seeking to do something that is so egregious that no reasonable person could find that it lies within the constitutional framework, or simply sailing as close to the wind as he believes the courts will sanction. These are very different policy approaches.

No constitution can ever be absolute. Anything that is reduced to words is subject to interpretation and change. If a constitution is to prove durable, it can only do so by accommodating the times: Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis

The constitution is subject to change. They're called amendments, and they have to be voted on and ratified by a majority of the states. Our constitution was never designed to be a living breathing document. It's a static framework on how to run a government with a separation of powers and built in gridlock. But Obama blessed be his name believes he's above the law.

It's also written into united states law that it's the sword duty of the citizens to put the government back into place if and when those constitutional limits are tested beyond acceptability.

We, the people, are the fourth branch of government.

Constitutionalists, read this.

"APPENDIX.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Ummm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_si ... nstitution

Am I missing something here, or is Lysander Spooner Incapable of understanding English?

There are those that claim they understand English, but as anyone who's called into a tech support line to India knows full well speaking English and understanding English are two very different and distinct concepts.

Aha, very nice taking a couple of words out of that and ignoring everything else. Unless you think a few white wealthy male property owners really can legitimately sign a contract for everyone in America for all time without asking for anyone else's consent, his point remains valid.

Of course it was designed to be a living, breathing document--because it was drafted by intelligent people, who were learned in both the law and in politics. They recognized very early on the the essential characteristic of a successful federation was going to be compromise. People who believe in compromise do not go on to undercut that compromise by erecting static and inflexible frameworks around it.

Furthermore, the drafters of your constitution were perfectly well aware of the function of judicial interpretation, it having been an aspect of the Common Law for many centuries and there is not one word in the constitution that demonstrates that it was intended to have a single, fixed and static meaning for all time.

Anyone who claims that a document can have a fixed and unchaging meaning over the course of more than 220 years is either an idiot or a liar. The great strength of your constitutional process has been the degree to which judicial care and attention has enabled it to continue to be relevant. Sacrifice that strength on the altar of rigidity at your peril.

Find the the phrase "living" or "breathing" in the constitution. Any power not granted to the central government is forbidden to the central government. Of course, with the conivence of the courts, the constitution has been abridged, violated and usurped. The entire point of the constitution was to put a limit on government, not to enable government to do any old thing.

ruveyn

A person who things that a document doesn't change meaning could also be the document is in plain language.