What’s unconstitutional about fascism?
-
Oakman wrote:
I've said before that the two things a good government must do are: protect its citizens from intimidation by the use of, or the threat of the use of, force (including threats from itself) and enforce contract law as an absolute. Long before this case, or this president, the U.S. Government has proved to have real trouble accomplishing either of these goals.
the other, if not the single most important duty is the protection of individual rights. but to the point of the lawsuit: the Obama administration has already designated the UAW to own 55%. that preempts the bankruptcy court proceedings and if I read the language correctly is unconstituitional.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote: the other, if not the single most important duty is the protection of individual rights I think that the right not to have force used against me (unless I start using force against others) and the right to believe that any and all contracts will be carried out are all the civil rights I need. All of the Bill of Rights, for instance say is that in specific cases, the government will not use its force against me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Now, isn't Obama a Constituitional scholar?
That just means he understands it, not that he agrees with any of it. It is good to see people starting to fight back though. The elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is that virtually everything the federal government is doing is all a constitutional house of cards. The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down. I don't understand - you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down. I don't understand - you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Yes, I am. They may have little choice in the matter.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Yes, I am. They may have little choice in the matter.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I am. You have made my day. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Anytime. Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I'm not a Constitutional Scholar - I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor - but if I understand the law correctly, especially in federal court, all contracts entered into by the professed bankrupt, with only a few exceptions when the other party is the government, are null and void, and the judge in charge of the proceedings has great, or total leeway over how any assets or liabilities are handled. It sucks, but I think that's the way it'll happen. I've said before that the two things a good government must do are: protect its citizens from intimidation by the use of, or the threat of the use of, force (including threats from itself) and enforce contract law as an absolute. Long before this case, or this president, the U.S. Government has proved to have real trouble accomplishing either of these goals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
-
Anytime. Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'. Do tell, Why don't you elucidate? I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'. Do tell, Why don't you elucidate? I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Because the courts have always given the executive branch wide latitude in how they defend the nation, and because, as anyone with half a brain shoudl know, the role of commander in chief cannot be reduced to purely legal reasoning and restraint. Saving people's lives is more important than obeying every possible interpretation of every possible law. The details of what was done and why can be worked out later by the congress and the courts. The system was designed purposefully to work that way. However, the states and individuals can bring cases which the courts can simply not ignore without acknowledging that they no longer serve the US constitution in even the most superficial way. That has nothing to do with the executive branch.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)?
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)?
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Uh huh. What does him being president have anything to do with the qualifications necessary to justify a knowledge of constitutional law? See, it sounds like you're saying that unless you're actually important, you don't really need an education on the subjects you decide to talk about - which fits perfectly with the idea that you think waaaaay too much of your opinions.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The question is, what did he actually accomplish.
I would imagine he actually taught law students, presumably about constitutional law. Given his demeanor and rhetorical skill, I'm quite sure he was an excellent teacher, and being an excellent teacher for twelve years is one hell of an accomplishment in my book.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
You seemed to be fine with Bush's academic qualifications. And you seem to think your poor academic career qualifies you to pontificate on all things political and governmental.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!