Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Been seeing the posts here, the signatures and all the other sh*t like billboards and TV commercials about the Obama administration "shredding" or otherwise abusing the Constitution and all the resultant "suffering" of my fellow citizens. I remember the same talk about Bush and his gang, but never believed it, other than the Gitmo sh*t and some Patriot Act stuff.

Can someone with half a brain and an even temper please explain to me just how Obama and his people are doing these things? Nice, calm explanation. Bullet points with one, two sentence explanation for each would be perfect.

Thank you,

Cap'n Cat


"Is it cuz I'm black?"

Yes. It's because he's black.

My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?


EDIT: And because Obama's black.

danefan wrote:My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?

Nah. It's because he's black.

danefan wrote:My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?

Yup. And in Z's signature, apparently.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?

Nah. It's because he's black.

Sorry - i fixed it.

Grizalltheway wrote:

danefan wrote:My view is that "trampling on the Constitution" has been a conservative right "Easy Button" since the Clinton impeachment (really since the Reagan administration - but the "Federalist Society" cronies didn't really get any power until they hooked up with the anti-abortion religious right during the Bush v. Gore campaign.

Sometimes its justified (e.g. certain provisions of the Patriort Act), however most of the time its really just a philosophical policy difference that is in no way a "threat" to the ideals laid down in the Constitution.

But man doesn't "trampling on the Constitution" sound good on TV?

Yup. And in Z's signature, apparently.

Truth hurts, junior.

Why don't you just google "Obama" and "constitutional violations"?

CitadelGrad wrote:Why don't you just google "Obama" and "constitutional violations"?

Its the same as googling Bush and constitutional violations. Add in a "war cimes" for good measure to make sure you get all the fringe idiots' opinions.

No one writes anything middle of the road or objective on the internets.

You can probably find Bush associated with constitutional violations because he actually committed them, just as Obama is committing them. The truth is that nobody in Washington actually give a fuck about the constitution anymore.

CitadelGrad wrote:You can probably find Bush associated with constitutional violations because he actually committed them, just as Obama is committing them. The truth is that nobody in Washington actually give a fuck about the constitution anymore.

THIS.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:You can probably find Bush associated with constitutional violations because he actually committed them, just as Obama is committing them. The truth is that nobody in Washington actually give a **** about the constitution anymore.

THIS.

+2

Eventually, Obamacare will join the list when the courts get through with it...

CitadelGrad wrote:You can probably find Bush associated with constitutional violations because he actually committed them, just as Obama is committing them. The truth is that nobody in Washington actually give a fuck about the constitution anymore.

Then government has been "trampling on the Constitution" for the last 100 years?

I really don't see where the turning point is in history where the Federal Government all of sudden changed its ways? Perhaps the New Deal.

Everything is presented with such hysteria these days on both sides. Trampling on the Constitution in my eyes is the Alien-Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of of Habeus, Japanese internment camps, etc...

I just don't see how passing heatlh care legislation to provide health coverage to as many Americans as possible rises to that level.

danefan wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:You can probably find Bush associated with constitutional violations because he actually committed them, just as Obama is committing them. The truth is that nobody in Washington actually give a **** about the constitution anymore.

Then government has been "trampling on the Constitution" for the last 100 years?

I really don't see where the turning point is in history where the Federal Government all of sudden changed its ways? Perhaps the New Deal.

Everything is presented with such hysteria these days on both sides. Trampling on the Constitution in my eyes is the Alien-Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of of Habeus, Japanese internment camps, etc...

I just don't see how passing heatlh care legislation rises to that level.

Forcing citizens under threat of penalty to purchase something does not rise to the level of Constitutional violation???

Where does the federal government get that authority from?

Col Hogan wrote:

danefan wrote:
Then government has been "trampling on the Constitution" for the last 100 years?

I really don't see where the turning point is in history where the Federal Government all of sudden changed its ways? Perhaps the New Deal.

Everything is presented with such hysteria these days on both sides. Trampling on the Constitution in my eyes is the Alien-Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of of Habeus, Japanese internment camps, etc...

I just don't see how passing heatlh care legislation rises to that level.

Forcing citizens under threat of penalty to purchase something does not rise to the level of Constitutional violation???

Where does the federal government get that authority from?

Easy - the commerce clause.

If you want to disagree with me on that its fine. But the hysteria that is associated with the statemetent that Cap'n is citing ("TRAMPLING ON THE CONSITUTION") is a joke.

The health care bill was a policy decision. You can disagree with how it was drafted or how it will be implemented all you want and you'd be justified in doing so, but I still don't see the need for flat out call to arms of some people.

Cap'n Cat wrote:I remember the same talk about Bush and his gang, but never believed it

"the late united states" has been trampling on the Constitution since the illegal coercion of Sovereign States to remain in a country they no longer wanted any part of. its been all downhill from there.








black

danefan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Forcing citizens under threat of penalty to purchase something does not rise to the level of Constitutional violation???

Where does the federal government get that authority from?

Easy - the commerce clause.

If you want to disagree with me on that its fine. But the hysteria that is associated with the statemetent that Cap'n is citing ("TRAMPLING ON THE CONSITUTION") is a joke.

The health care bill was a policy decision. You can disagree with how it was drafted or how it will be implemented all you want and you'd be justified in doing so, but I still don't see the need for flat out call to arms of some people.

Have you even read the Commerce Clause? In no way was it meant to force individuals into commercial transactions.

CitadelGrad wrote:

danefan wrote:
Easy - the commerce clause.

If you want to disagree with me on that its fine. But the hysteria that is associated with the statemetent that Cap'n is citing ("TRAMPLING ON THE CONSITUTION") is a joke.

The health care bill was a policy decision. You can disagree with how it was drafted or how it will be implemented all you want and you'd be justified in doing so, but I still don't see the need for flat out call to arms of some people.

Have you even read the Commerce Clause? In no way was it meant to force individuals into commercial transactions.

Once again - there are arguments in both directions on the commerce clause. There are valid arguments that under the highest law of the land, the Commerce Clause allows Congress to enact legislation that protects consumers in the interstate commerce of health insurance. This isn't just made up out of thin air. Its based on the Commerce Clause interpreation of the Supreme Court - you know that Court that is supposed to interpret the Constitution. Or are we going to go all the way back to Marbury vs. Madison?

Even if it fails the commerce clause argument (which it might) Congress still has the power to tax doesn't it? The power to tax as a prohibition? The power to tax as incentive as well?

Once again - policy decisions! Its not an attack on the Constitution. Its an attempt to enact policy within the defined (or no so-defined in this case) bounds of the Constitution.

We know, we know....it's a "living document", right DF?

AZGrizFan wrote:We know, we know....it's a "living document", right DF?

I'm not sure how "alive" it is, but I sure as hell can't ever believe it hasn't grown one bit since 1787.
I'm half-way through Active Liberty. I'll let you know when I'm done.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:We know, we know....it's a "living document", right DF?

I'm not sure how "alive" it is, but I sure as hell can't ever believe it hasn't grown one bit since 1787.
I'm half-way through Active Liberty. I'll let you know when I'm done.

If it's going to "grow", it shoudl be through the mechanism that was established when it was written....called an AMENDMENT, not through the twisted interpretation of activist judges and politicians with an agenda.

AZGrizFan wrote:
If it's going to "grow", it shoudl be through the mechanism that was established when it was written....called an AMENDMENT, not through the twisted interpretation of activist judges and politicians with an agenda.

Remember - that's your opinion and its the minority opinion in American history.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
If it's going to "grow", it shoudl be through the mechanism that was established when it was written....called an AMENDMENT, not through the twisted interpretation of activist judges and politicians with an agenda.

Remember - that's your opinion and its the minority opinion in American history.

Really? Then why establish the mechanism?

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
Remember - that's your opinion and its the minority opinion in American history.

Really? Then why establish the mechanism?

Its all about checks-and-balances my friend. its a beautiful system.

The 13th and 14th Amendments are great examples.