Ted Cruz born in Canada; Hilarious!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If it were this obvious that the things Obama wanted to fundamentally transform were unconstitutional, it would have gotten to the SCOTUS already. The Supreme Court rules on the final constitutionality and recess appointments may end up being valid. Obamacare was ruled valid by the Supreme Court, and if all you have is recess appointments, this does not impact the constitutionality of creating jobs, helping people, and changing Wall Street policies. |
Anonymous
| Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill. |
Anonymous
What's your point? That has absolutely no bearing on the bill and it's constitutionality. Also, the mandate was a Republican idea, and was held valid by an incredibly conservative Supreme Court. |
Anonymous
So, your real contention is that he's uppity? And doesn't know his place? Wow. |
Anonymous
| By the way, the achilles heel in every "Obama is a socialist/tyrant/anti-American despot" argument is that in countries where the leaders actually ARE those things you get thrown in the gulag for challenging the leaders legitimacy. |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Disagreeing about the Constitution is not unusual; we do it all the time in our discussions on DCUM -- consider school prayer or guns. When a Presidential action is declared unconstitutional, it is voided. There is no grounds for impeachment, just the normal way separation of powers works. If the President defied the Court, that would merit talk of impeachment. |
Anonymous
Correct. And of course, many Supreme Court decisions are 5 -4, so even the justices usually do not agree on what is or is not constitutional. That is the way our system works. The notion that Obama should be impeached for an action that is eventually declared unconstitutional is absurd. |
Anonymous
So it is constitutional #moveon |
Anonymous
still at the appeals level and hardly an earth shattering violation. Recess appointment are an enumerated power after all. |
Anonymous
He's haughty. That gets in his way. |
Anonymous
Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves. |
Anonymous
He's an intelligent president in a nation where his opposition prides itself on being anti-intellectual. So, it's really a matter of perception. I don't see him as haughty at all. |
Anonymous
That's your spin. |
Anonymous
No, those are their words. It is incessant. "Ivory Tower" this and "elitism" that. Scientists can't be trusted, you have to test your kids to make sure that college isn't turning them into liberals, I'm not reading you-know-who because I don't like his background. WEB Dubois' opiinion about the black experience of the early 1900's is just as good as mine 100 years later. Remember when Rick Santorum called Obama a "snob" for hoping that every kid could go to college? He actually said "Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image". But hey, if you don't remember any of this, here is the truth from your own ranks: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-conservatism-lost-its-mind/ Or how about this quote, from the American Thinker: "It comes down to this: Americans are anti-intellectual because the intellectuals are anti-American." OMFG did he just say that?? Yes he did. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/americans_are_anti-intellectual_because.html#ixzz2cvhhOTqI Or the watchdog groups like Accuracy in Academia? They have been at it since the 80's. It's pervasive. Whatever happened to William F. Buckley? I hated the guy but at least I respected him. |
Anonymous
| Maybe you are right. I was confusing "intellectual" with an "intelligent" person. It is clear that YOU are an intellectual. So sorry. |