The Verdict: Snubbing your nose at the Constitution is becoming a tradition

[NoStateofMind]

The Verdict

A snippet from Andrew Napolitano speaking about government ignoring the Constitution and presidents who have done so in the past. It is my opinion this is not going to end with Obama becoming president.

 

[Demo24]

That didn't really say much, just kind of gave about as broad an explanation as one could get. Still, was there any real need to include Obama in your post? That video, yes mentions him, but does not focus on him. You make it seem like the video is proving something else when it clearly states that both nominees will likely ignore parts of the constitution. Thus if you're going to moderate this forum why don't you take the high road and try to be more neutral. You could have just as easily said "It is in my opinion that this is not going to end with either nominee elected president".

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: DEMO24
That didn't really say much, just kind of gave about as broad an explanation as one could get. Still, was there any real need to include Obama in your post? That video, yes mentions him, but does not focus on him. You make it seem like the video is proving something else when it clearly states that both nominees will likely ignore parts of the constitution. Thus if you're going to moderate this forum why don't you take the high road and try to be more neutral. You could have just as easily said "It is in my opinion that this is not going to end with either nominee elected president".

First, when I post, I post as a member, not a moderator. That gives me the freedom to have an opinion. That opinion is that Obama will be president and he will not change anything the past administration has done. No reduction of power, no repealing of the patriot act, retroactive immunities will stay in place, spying on citizens will continue and I don't see habeas corpus being reinstated. I have to question very seriously if you think otherwise, and not only that, but ask you to rethink your positions when you find out he won't.

 

[bamacre]

A tidal wave a bullshit is coming.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I would hope that Obama might restore some of the national honor that that has been so easily discarded by the current administration. I doubt that McCain would even try.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: DEMO24
That didn't really say much, just kind of gave about as broad an explanation as one could get. Still, was there any real need to include Obama in your post? That video, yes mentions him, but does not focus on him. You make it seem like the video is proving something else when it clearly states that both nominees will likely ignore parts of the constitution. Thus if you're going to moderate this forum why don't you take the high road and try to be more neutral. You could have just as easily said "It is in my opinion that this is not going to end with either nominee elected president".

WOA! Does anyone tell Harvey to post completely neutral? He is a moderator as well.

On topic though. That is my biggest fear for the country is how much we are swaying away from the constitution, and people don't seem to be alarmed by it, or they just don't understand it is happening.

A quick story. So my uncle was sitting in on a court case just to learn some things, and at the court house some guy came up to the window to pay a fine. Apparently he went to get a job and the employer said he had a warrant out for his arrest, and he had to clear it up before he could get hired. So, the person behind the counter said. Just sign here and waive your rights, and pay this $50 dollar fine and you are free to go, and the warrant will be gone.

The guys crime? Having an argument over the phone with his wife, who then called the cops on him.

For that he signed away his rights, and admitted guilt of committing a crime.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder how those 4000 criminal laws got past the Supreme Court.

 

[sandorski]

"In my Opinion"

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: DEMO24
That didn't really say much, just kind of gave about as broad an explanation as one could get. Still, was there any real need to include Obama in your post? That video, yes mentions him, but does not focus on him. You make it seem like the video is proving something else when it clearly states that both nominees will likely ignore parts of the constitution. Thus if you're going to moderate this forum why don't you take the high road and try to be more neutral. You could have just as easily said "It is in my opinion that this is not going to end with either nominee elected president".

First, when I post, I post as a member, not a moderator. That gives me the freedom to have an opinion. That opinion is that Obama will be president and he will not change anything the past administration has done. No reduction of power, no repealing of the patriot act, retroactive immunities will stay in place, spying on citizens will continue and I don't see habeas corpus being reinstated. I have to question very seriously if you think otherwise, and not only that, but ask you to rethink your positions when you find out he won't.

and you want to ignore all the bullshit Obama would love to introduce that would go against the Constitution as well?
education reforms, universal/national healthcare plans, and other socialist bullshit? That is NOT for the fucking Federal government to handle dammit! Obama just wants to continue the enlargement of the Federal government, and completely sidestep the Constitution, which states that basically all of those concepts are up to the State's, if they so choose to handle them.

Not to forget the fact that if Obama is elected, it'll likely be a Democratic-majority in Congress, which means: the U.S. is fucked beyond belief. The best periods of US government are often when the President and the Congressional majority are different parties.

And leaving all blame on Bush as so many want to do, is everyone taking the blame off themselves, and forgetting the fact that Congress came up with half the bullshit, and went along with the other half, and that all those Congressmen were voted in by us and we continued to let them stay in power after fucking up - and remember, last 4 years (iirc), Congress has been under a democrat majority.

And most of the average joe's, as well as half of the people who claim to be smarter than the average joe, negates to realize that half of our current problems, are rooted not in GWB, but in Clinton and administrations prior. Bush let some of these problems continue, so blame isn't necessarily being shifted... but let's not forget, problems never rise up immediately - most take years to finally surface after something is put into law.

 

[Jhhnn]

More of the "They're just as bad!" meme, followed by the usual "divided government" pitch in defense of the lurch to the far Right of the last 8 years. Funny how repubs weren't saying that when they had solid majorities in Congress and the Whitehouse- they were arrogantly raving about a "permanent majority", instead.

Retroactive immunity for Telcos is a done deal, a dead issue- that can't be undone. OTOH, execs can't plead the fifth to avoid contempt of Congress when hearings occur.

The Patriot act is a work in progress, subject to modification and the zeal of the Executive in pursuing it. If nothing else, the Bush Admin should have shown us the power was always there, that the executive can choose to use it or not, legalities be damned. I think we'll see an entirely different set of priorities driving enforcement/ non-enforcement of federal statutes with an Obama presidency.

Habeas Corpus? According to the Bushistas, those not granted it under their regime weren't protected by it in the first place, remember? I think we'll see it expanded, if perhaps not as far as many of us would like. That will likely include some of the Gitmo political prisoners resettled in the US, like it or not. When you drag people to the other side of the world and imprison them for no good reason, you become responsible for them.

As for the rest of it, the Whitehouse and Senatorial repubs have basically held the troops and the budget hostage to their whims and to their ideology of looting over the last 2 years. Where Dems will take us remains to be seen, and yet we're already seeing a movement to blame Clinton for the repubs' mess- more of the usual denial and refusal to recognize their own failed policies, a refusal to engage in any self-examination whatsoever...

 

[microbial]

What's worse, ignoring the constitution or being ignorant of it.

Just yesterday Sarah Palin voiced an interesting interpretation (?) of the First Amendment. It appears that she feels she has the right to say anything without jeopardy of criticism from the press. In fact she goes so far as to claim that her first amendment rights to speech might be abridged by a critical press, insinuating putting a muzzle on the press in order to protect her rights.

Now, if I wasn't prepared to believe right now that SP has no clue about anything having to do with the constitution, her statement yesterday might be the scariest thing I've ever heard any politician say since, uh, Bush II, actually.

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: microbial
What's worse, ignoring the constitution or being ignorant of it.

Just yesterday Sarah Palin voiced an interesting interpretation (?) of the First Amendment. It appears that she feels she has the right to say anything without jeopardy of criticism from the press. In fact she goes so far as to claim that her first amendment rights to speech might be abridged by a critical press, insinuating putting a muzzle on the press in order to protect her rights.

Now, if I wasn't prepared to believe right now that SP has no clue about anything having to do with the constitution, her statement yesterday might be the scariest thing I've ever heard any politician say since, uh, Bush II, actually.

But she's the future of the republican party!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: microbial
What's worse, ignoring the constitution or being ignorant of it.

Just yesterday Sarah Palin voiced an interesting interpretation (?) of the First Amendment. It appears that she feels she has the right to say anything without jeopardy of criticism from the press. In fact she goes so far as to claim that her first amendment rights to speech might be abridged by a critical press, insinuating putting a muzzle on the press in order to protect her rights.

Now, if I wasn't prepared to believe right now that SP has no clue about anything having to do with the constitution, her statement yesterday might be the scariest thing I've ever heard any politician say since, uh, Bush II, actually.

Link? If accurate, perhaps she has been watching Russia a bit too closely from her backyard. She might be of the mind that the press should be what it was under the Soviets i.e. Pravda.

 

[GeezerMan]

I watched the Charlie Rose show on PBS last night. He interviewed David Brooks, a columnist at the New York Times. He was asked his opinion of where we are going. David said we are heading toward corporate conservativism. He said companies like Goldman Sachs will run the country. I agree and it sounds like fascism to me. The really shocking thing is neither Charlie or David said a word about the comment. Not one word. Amazing

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
I watched the Charlie Rose show on PBS last night. He interviewed David Brooks, a columnist at the New York Times. He was asked his opinion of where we are going.

David said we are heading toward corporate conservativism.

He said companies like Goldman Sachs will run the country.

I agree and it sounds like fascism to me.

The really shocking thing is neither Charlie or David said a word about the comment.

Not one word. Amazing

They still want a paycheck. Had he said something he'd be on the unemployment line.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
On topic though. That is my biggest fear for the country is how much we are swaying away from the constitution, and people don't seem to be alarmed by it, or they just don't understand it is happening.

The constitution does not allow them to shake this money tree.

Early last century our politicians learned that handing out cash from the public treasury got them elected and reelected. Ergo, the only agenda is wealth redistribution and the centralization of power required to achieve it. The constitution forbids such powers at the federal level, so now it is considered a ?living? and ?old? document subject to the whim of the current rulers.

When you decide that one phrase, necessary and proper, is enough to burn the rest of the document, then you have betrayed the United States and its constitution.

To grant yourself the power to do good deeds, you also grant the power to do evil. There may as well have never been a constitution, bill of rights, or a revolution to establish them. We have slid back into that proverbial rock from whence we came and the people would sooner accept a dictatorship that dolled out crash than a democracy which couldn?t.