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.
Proverbs 28:4
"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them."
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.
Complete and utter emotive nonsense!
There is no "constitutional crisis".
Obama is not a "dictator".
What we see are attempts by a disgruntled minority to nullify federal laws.
They have failed to achieve their goal in the ballot box.
They have failed to achieve their goal by holding the nation hostage.
They are about to fail again with a baseless lawsuit.
The nation and the Constitution will weather this storm in a Tea Party cup because the balance of power is shifting out of their hands. It might take until 2020 and another Census for the new demographics to fully take effect but the current temper tantrum has no future in my opinion. Moderate rational compromise will prevail in the end.
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.
Complete and utter emotive nonsense!
There is no "constitutional crisis".
Obama is not a "dictator".
What we see are attempts by a disgruntled minority to nullify federal laws.
They have failed to achieve their goal in the ballot box.
They have failed to achieve their goal by holding the nation hostage.
They are about to fail again with a baseless lawsuit.
The nation and the Constitution will weather this storm in a Tea Party cup because the balance of power is shifting out of their hands. It might take until 2020 and another Census for the new demographics to fully take effect but the current temper tantrum has no future in my opinion. Moderate rational compromise will prevail in the end.
Granted, the dictator stuff is silly - but this is more than sour grapes. There's deep division in the nation over the proper role of government, and just how much power the majority should have. Which is something that can't, for obvious reasons, be resolved by a simple consensus.
So what exactly is the nature of the "deep division" today?
I am going to ask you to articulate it so I won't be charged with mischaracterizing it.
So what exactly is the nature of the "deep division" today?
I am going to ask you to articulate it so I won't be charged with mischaracterizing it.
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. The Question is whether the Constitution limits government by granting it only certain powers, or whether government is only limited by specific prohibitions (eg the Bill of Rights).
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.
What you are telling me is that people who don't have a good grasp of the Constitution and how the system works are dissatisfied because their political leaders are telling them to be upset in order to garner their votes.
What you are telling me is that people who don't have a good grasp of the Constitution and how the system works are dissatisfied because their political leaders are telling them to be upset in order to garner their votes.
There's plenty of that, on both sides of the dispute. But there's a real debate underneath it all.
Go back and read the decision. the Roberts court will uphold it by 7 to 2 at the least.
We won't know for a few years since they won't actually collect the tax till next Jan, if it is upheld we will be truly in a post-constitutional era.
How? By what standard?
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 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.
What you are telling me is that people who don't have a good grasp of the Constitution and how the system works are dissatisfied because their political leaders are telling them to be upset in order to garner their votes.
There's plenty of that, on both sides of the dispute. But there's a real debate underneath it all.
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.
There's plenty of that, on both sides of the dispute. But there's a real debate underneath it all.
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.
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.
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.
Gotta love it when posters come up with this kind of apocalyptic hyperbole!
OKTexas, dlblack, and others go, "wah, we don't like this."
No one cares.
OKTexas, dlblack, and others go, "wah, we don't like this."
No one cares.
go away, rightwingerjake. your talking points and bullshit are boring.
Ok, everyone pay attention:
this lawsuit is a good thing for the country. It will establish presidential limits of power for FUTURE presidents. There is zero chance that the court will rule that any of obama's unconstitutional acts must be overturned, so forget about that, even though that is what should happen---it won't.
But future presidents will risk real impeachment if they go beyond the limits established by this suit, and it will apply to presidents from both parties.
It is a good thing for the USA, forget the partisan bullshit for a while and let this move forward.
