Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This law suit, in and of itself doesn't matter. One of three things will happen:
1. SCOTUS will refuse to hear it
2. SCOTUS will find in favor of the President
3. SCOTUS will find in favor of Boehner
If SCOTUS finds in favor of Boehner, then the President will apologize and make some token gesture of conforming to the courts decisions.
What really matters is the outcome of the next congressional elections:
If there is a Republicans victory by a wide enough margin, they will impeach the President and remove him from office - no matter what. Having this law suit succeed will be just one more excuse for a legislative coup. But it won't matter - they'll go ahead with impeachment one way or another.
This law suit, in and of itself doesn't matter. One of three things will happen:
1. SCOTUS will refuse to hear it
2. SCOTUS will find in favor of the President
3. SCOTUS will find in favor of Boehner
If SCOTUS finds in favor of Boehner, then the President will apologize and make some token gesture of conforming to the courts decisions.
What really matters is the outcome of the next congressional elections:
If there is a Republicans victory by a wide enough margin, they will impeach the President and remove him from office - no matter what. Having this law suit succeed will be just one more excuse for a legislative coup. But it won't matter - they'll go ahead with impeachment one way or another.
Impeachment does not equal "removal from office".
President Obama will finish out his term. He will be present on Inauguration Day in 2017......congratulating the newly elected POTUS as our Republic moves forward.
This lawsuit will not be heard, I believe. And Boehner doesn't care either way. He already lost the nutter base capital that it gave him. That idiot doesn't have an ounce of foresight.
No, a debate means that both sides are engaged with the topic clearly identified.
What we have here is not a debate. It is a complaint brought about by a failure to educate and comprehend that we no longer live in a world where horses and muskets are in daily use.
If you want a debate then clearly state your issue and put it on the table.
I've stated my position clearly. I don't think you're unclear on where I stand, you just don't accept it.
Your "position", and I use the term loosely, is that you have developed an "attitude", your term not mine, towards the 9th and 10th Amendments.
It's a holdover from a division that was lurking from the very beginning, and is summed up by our attitudes toward the ninth and tenth amendments.
Nowhere have you clearly articulated any "powers" or "limitations" that you want to debate.
This is not about whether I "accept" anything. This is about a failure on your part to stipulate your grievances and put them on the table.
Let's recap briefly regarding other "deep divisions" in our history. The Founding Fathers were very specific about what they were objecting to in the DoI. Martin Luther King as the spokesperson for the Civil Rights movement clearly articulated what they saw as needing to remedied. There are pictures where LBJ and MLK are meeting to sort out their "deep division".
So I still don't see anything more than a sullen attitude and some non specific mumbling about the BoR from your side.
The constitution has been under attack from the far left for a very long time, just now instead of attacking it, they just ignore it.
A constitution scholar president has been shot down 9 times by the SC (9 -0) more than any other president.
Goes to prove that the far left does not know the Constitution let alone understand it.
To them it is just a GD piece of paper.
You might consider doing a fact check and in doing so remember the devil is in the details. Some of the 13 cases rules by the Supremes 9-0 were EO issued by George W. Bush. But don't take my word for it, see:
GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact
But read the entire article, don't cherry pick. If you do, I'll be watching.
btw, here is the conclusion for those to lazy to read the entire article:
"Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration."
We rate Goodlattes statement False.
The answer is that the passage of Amendments, laws, and SCOTUS opinions have changed the context of the role of the 9th and 10th in modern society.
That's the question, not the answer. That's what some of us are rejecting.
Quit slicing, leaving in the name of the quoter, and then taking the comment out of context.
Here is the full post, which easily answers your question. You don't like the answer, which is your problem, not mine
The answer is that the passage of Amendments, laws, and SCOTUS opinions have changed the context of the role of the 9th and 10th in modern society. They do not, and never will again, operate as a check against the national government as the far right wished they would. States Rights is very, very limited now, not the federal government.
__________________
The [Tenth A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute
The answer is that the passage of Amendments, laws, and SCOTUS opinions have changed the context of the role of the 9th and 10th in modern society. They do not, and never will again, operate as a check against the national government as the far right wished they would. States Rights is very, very limited now, not the federal government.
So you are confirming that we are indeed living in a post-constitutional America. Madison said the powers of the feds were few and defined and those of the States were vast. Just the opposite of what you just described, and you appear to be fine with it, how pathetic are you, you fucking loser.
Nonsense.
There is no such thing as a 'post-Constitution America,' the Constitution is functioning today as it always has, in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.
The Framers were not of one mind with regard to many issues of their day, and they often changed their positions over time concerning various issues. In addition, one member of the Founding Generation did not speak for all, nor would he be representative of all, or possess the sole authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution.
This is why it's important to understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the Constitution in Articles III and VI as well as the doctrine of judicial review.
It was the intent of the American people who created the Constitution that their National government be supreme, that the Federal Constitution be supreme, and acts of Congress be supreme, with Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts superior to that of the states and local jurisdictions (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
And it was the intent of the Founding Generation that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, and that the courts determine when Congress has acted in accordance with the Constitution, and when it has not ( McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).
The Constitution affords and guarantees the states their own rights and privileges immune from Federal overreach; but the people who reside within the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their civil liberties as American citizens are paramount and cannot be violated by the states, and are safeguarded by the Federal Constitution and its case law.
I've stated my position clearly. I don't think you're unclear on where I stand, you just don't accept it.
Your "position", and I use the term loosely, is that you have developed an "attitude", your term not mine, towards the 9th and 10th Amendments.
It's a holdover from a division that was lurking from the very beginning, and is summed up by our attitudes toward the ninth and tenth amendments.
Nowhere have you clearly articulated any "powers" or "limitations" that you want to debate.
This is not about whether I "accept" anything. This is about a failure on your part to stipulate your grievances and put them on the table.
Let's recap briefly regarding other "deep divisions" in our history. The Founding Fathers were very specific about what they were objecting to in the DoI. Martin Luther King as the spokesperson for the Civil Rights movement clearly articulated what they saw as needing to remedied. There are pictures where LBJ and MLK are meeting to sort out their "deep division".
So I still don't see anything more than a sullen attitude and some non specific mumbling about the BoR from your side.
Ah.. you've resorted to being an insulting prick. It seems hard for you to avoid.
The actual history of the Constitution's ratification shows the roots of the ongoing disagreements in its interpretation, if you care to read up on it. The debate over the general welfare clause, and the politics regarding the inclusion of the Bill of Rights is a pretty good place to start.
The constitution has been under attack from the far left for a very long time, just now instead of attacking it, they just ignore it.
A constitution scholar president has been shot down 9 times by the SC (9 -0) more than any other president.
Goes to prove that the far left does not know the Constitution let alone understand it.
To them it is just a GD piece of paper.
You might consider doing a fact check and in doing so remember the devil is in the details. Some of the 13 cases rules by the Supremes 9-0 were EO issued by George W. Bush. But don't take my word for it, see:
GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact
But read the entire article, don't cherry pick. If you do, I'll be watching.
btw, here is the conclusion for those to lazy to read the entire article:
"Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration."
We rate Goodlattes statement False.
What does that tell you? It demonstrate that Bush Jr. a leftists, a Progressive.
Medicare D and Patriot Act are Progressive acts.
Which means we had a Progressive President for 4 terms from both R and D party.
Ask yourself how much liberty you have now vs. 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Live without regrets, live in the present moment. The past is gone and the future is to come. Learn from the past and plan for the future.
In fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments were never originally intended as a 'check' on Federal authority to the advantage of the states. That was a recent contrivance of the reactionary right
and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
...
where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I've done nothing for black men and women that I've not done for Asian men and women, white men and women and each and every race, ethnicity or creed with the youth I coached as a volunteer and those I recruited, trained or managed in my career in law enforcement
Actually I think 2nd Amendments post was evidence of racism (the poor black people need my help).
The constitution has been under attack from the far left for a very long time, just now instead of attacking it, they just ignore it.
A constitution scholar president has been shot down 9 times by the SC (9 -0) more than any other president.
Goes to prove that the far left does not know the Constitution let alone understand it.
To them it is just a GD piece of paper.
You might consider doing a fact check and in doing so remember the devil is in the details. Some of the 13 cases rules by the Supremes 9-0 were EO issued by George W. Bush. But don't take my word for it, see:
GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact
But read the entire article, don't cherry pick. If you do, I'll be watching.
btw, here is the conclusion for those to lazy to read the entire article:
"Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration."
We rate Goodlattes statement False.
What does that tell you? It demonstrate that Bush Jr. a leftists, a Progressive.
Medicare D and Patriot Act are Progressive acts.
Which means we had a Progressive President for 4 terms from both R and D party.
Ask yourself how much liberty you have now vs. 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Live without regrets, live in the present moment. The past is gone and the future is to come. Learn from the past and plan for the future.
The constitution has been under attack from the far left for a very long time, just now instead of attacking it, they just ignore it.
A constitution scholar president has been shot down 9 times by the SC (9 -0) more than any other president.
Goes to prove that the far left does not know the Constitution let alone understand it.
To them it is just a GD piece of paper.
Actually this administrating has been shot down 13 times 9-0 but believe it or not it's not a record, Clinton was shot down 18 times 9-0.
Sadly, the facts are right wing jerks like OKTexas are dishonest - either willfully so, or because they were dropped on their head too often as an infant.
In fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments were never originally intended as a 'check' on Federal authority to the advantage of the states. That was a recent contrivance of the reactionary right
Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions on 10th Amendment Nullification are a recent contrivance? [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
...
where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When was Thomas Jefferson a justice on the United States Supreme Court.
The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.
Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.
The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?
Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:
Is Obama a dictator?
And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.
If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.
Wrong, congress will still have the power of the purse, they have the power to shut the whole thing down, if it really comes to it. Let's see how the dear leader implements his grand plans with no money.
This. Wrongpublicans will continue to terrorize the nation with threats of "hitting the debt ceiling" and "plummeting off a fiscal cliff" just as they have since they stole a majority in the House.
President Obama, a dictator? Please. We sure could use one, though, to deal with all these Tea-hadis running around Washington, shutting down the gyvyrnmynt.
