Which Constitutional rights does Obama actually support? Any of Bill of Rights?

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't put all the blame on this President, as much as I blame those in congress in both political parties. This crap started with 9/11 and has been going downhill ever since, with both Democrats and Republicans voting on, making policies on, and extending much of the errosions the OP is speaking of.

There is enough blame to go around on all sides. But more importantly, why do the American people continue to be snowed by all this? Media..and lack of education, and those who simply do not follow politics.

I have known so many young fella's who tell me they don't vote, they could care less, and those who think more government intrusion is better. Sigh...

The NSI answers to the DNI, which in turn has a boss. Know who that is? The President. Know who that is? Obama.

While I haven't any use for either party, there is one man who has the power to reign this in, and he has said in effect he has no intentions to do so. I don't know what Jedi mind powers people think others hold over the President, but this is one case where one man has no accountability to anyone, be it government or party. He can say "No more".

Besides, there is some truth to what others have said. We wanted the government to look over us. We wanted them to take care of us, keep us safe and give us more. All that is required is for the citizen to diminish and you have most anything- at a cost.

Our nation has sold it's birthright for a bowl of lentils.

Well at least many are taking an interest in the world they signed up for.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And that is why we have a system of checks and balances.

Lets place the blame where it belongs, on congress. The president is nothing more than a figurehead.

That's incredibly naive. I suggest you read my last post. The buck is Obama's.

Figurehead? Hardly. He's the single most powerful person in the US government, and arguably in the world.

 

[Agent11]

They have nothing whatsoever in common. Greens are proponents of huge government, pro-wealth confiscation & redistribution. Libertarians are proponents of very limited government (especially environmental regulations) and very low taxation. Were they to come together I'd expect a huge explosion releasing energy proportional to their mass.

They're supposed to be primarily environmentalist though, right? There shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't cede some of their other issues or beliefs concerning governance in return for support for their most important ones. That is how politics works when people aren't foaming at the mouth radicals.

Wishful thinking though, both greens and libertarians have proven to be ineffectual. A party focused on environment and liberty would be a pretty nice alternative though.

 

[Zaap]

Come on now, Obama et al looooove them some 5th Amendment.

What else can they cite to stonewall answering questions about violating all the others?

 

[Zaap]

They're supposed to be primarily environmentalist though, right?

Libertarians? No. I'm curious where you even get this notion. werepossum is exactly right, the two have nothing in common and nothing to do with each other. A true libertarian is the exact opposite of "we know what's best for everyone"/"we're going to use the threat of environmental doomsday as our excuse to push marxist claptrap and fleece everyone's pockets" position of many environmental leftists.

 

[Texashiker]

That's incredibly naive. I suggest you read my last post. The buck is Obama's.

Figurehead? Hardly. He's the single most powerful person in the US government, and arguably in the world.

The president is only as powerful as congress allows him to be.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That's incredibly naive. I suggest you read my last post. The buck is Obama's.

Figurehead? Hardly. He's the single most powerful person in the US government, and arguably in the world.

Wow, he's even MORE amazing than I thought: Obama runs the WHOLE government!

I love how the OP starts a thread complaining about the President abusing the constitution, yet conveniently forgets, oh i dunno, everything else thats in there.

 

[Agent11]

libertarians? No. I'm curious where you even get this notion. Werepossum is exactly right, the two have nothing in common and nothing to do with each other. A true libertarian is the exact opposite of "we know what's best for everyone"/"we're going to use the threat of environmental doomsday as our excuse to push marxist claptrap and fleece everyone's pockets" position of many environmental leftists.

Greens. The point was that environmentalism is the green's main issue, not marxism or any specific style of governance. Although libertarianism and environmentalism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The problem with third parties is they have too narrow of vision, platform and voting base. There is no reason why the Greens and Libertarians couldn't form a coalition if they hashed things out, besides their own ideological purity. The same Ideological purity that dooms them to remain ineffectual.

 

[werepossum]

They're supposed to be primarily environmentalist though, right? There shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't cede some of their other issues or beliefs concerning governance in return for support for their most important ones. That is how politics works when people aren't foaming at the mouth radicals.

Wishful thinking though, both greens and libertarians have proven to be ineffectual. A party focused on environment and liberty would be a pretty nice alternative though.

Take a careful look at the Green Party's political platform. As Zaap says, environmentalism is but a veneer these days; the Greens are merely the far, far left part of the Democrat agenda which all about wealth redistribution and "social justice". Even if the Greens were to embrace environmentalism, the Libertarians couldn't come to the table because they are primarily about removing government regulation these days. Environmental regulations and enforcement can be crippling; however, if we leave environmental protection up to the corporations then the company with no regard for the environment would have a great competitive advantage. Even if the vast majority of corporations embraced good environmental policies, they would eventually be out-competed by companies with no such ethics, just as we see corporations which refuse to outsource jobs to China and Mexico being out-competed by companies which embrace outsourcing (and which will ultimately be out-competed by Chinese companies, with the same low labor costs but much less expensive management costs,

But I do agree, a party with strong environmental policies and strong individual liberty policies would be a compelling alternative.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, he's even MORE amazing than I thought: Obama runs the WHOLE government!

I love how the OP starts a thread complaining about the President abusing the constitution, yet conveniently forgets, oh i dunno, everything else thats in there.

Hayabusa Rider is correct though; Congress can make laws allowing such power, but the President can choose whether to exercise it. Just because he CAN spy on Americans doesn't mean he HAS to spy on Americans.

I'm all for blaming Obama just as long as we don't forget that the Republicans (and their next candidate) are just as bad. Perhaps it's inevitable; spend enough years in politics to reach the White House and one inevitably starts believing that government is the answer to all problems and that anything one does is automatically done with the best of intentions and therefore good and pure.

 

[justoh]

They say that he tried too hard in the beginning to get the crazies who have taken over the right on his side, but that doesn't explain why he continues to disappoint those who voted for him now that he's won re-election. Looks like he was just a bit of a douchebag all along. I'm starting to think that his claim to faith might have been sincere, in which case it's pointless trying to understand this person.

 

[glenn1]

Wow, he's even MORE amazing than I thought: Obama runs the WHOLE government!

I love how the OP starts a thread complaining about the President abusing the constitution, yet conveniently forgets, oh i dunno, everything else thats in there.

Fancy that, I started a thread talking about Executive branch abuses and one of Obama's fanbois wants to distract with the "he's not omnipotent" and "there are other branches of government too!" You just cannot bring yourself to admit his wrongs, can you? Or need to minimize them with "well Congress has cooties too!"

No wonder he shits all over you and progressive values, he knows you won't stand up to him and he doesn't respect you. Because you're cowardly pussies who he can cow back into submission with menacing references about "evil Republicans." You'll defend having your rights taken away and cheer as he does it saying "it would have been worse under someone else."

 

[fskimospy]

The president is only as powerful as congress allows him to be.

That's not true, the president has an enormous amount of power outside of what Congress wants.

That being said, the OP is ridiculous. The first amendment doesn't protect publishing classified information, his statement about the 2nd amendment is unfounded, his complaint about the 5th is absurd, etc, etc.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't put all the blame on this President, as much as I blame those in congress in both political parties. This crap started with 9/11 and has been going downhill ever since, with both Democrats and Republicans voting on, making policies on, and extending much of the errosions the OP is speaking of.

There is enough blame to go around on all sides. But more importantly, why do the American people continue to be snowed by all this? Media..and lack of education, and those who simply do not follow politics.

I have known so many young fella's who tell me they don't vote, they could care less, and those who think more government intrusion is better. Sigh...

I'd agree that the apathy of the general public is the real problem here. Most people neither understand their constitutional rights nor appreciate the need to stay vigilant to protect them. They mostly just care about what benefit the gov't can give them next.

 

[sportage]

Oh just wait till the micro-drones come after you like a mosquito on a hot muggy Summers night. By the hundreds.
Kinda makes that assault weapon, and the second amendment a little... immaterial.
Yee-Haw

Whoops...
Forgot the photo.
Anyone bring the OFF?
God I love technology. As if anything we have today will have anything to do with how we live tomorrow.
Including any so called constitutional "rights".
And you thought George Orwell's 1984 was some horror story.
U ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not true, the president has an enormous amount of power outside of what Congress wants.

That being said, the OP is ridiculous. The first amendment doesn't protect publishing classified information, his statement about the 2nd amendment is unfounded, his complaint about the 5th is absurd, etc, etc.

It reads like a chain email and I don't buy it, however I do question how Obama views the Constitution.

We have a person in office who (for whatever reason) who seems willing to not only disregard his oath of office, but does so in a cavalier way and I use his statement of 100% freedom vs 100% security as an example. What else might he dismiss if it suited such a person?

About a month ago you were waiting for an example of an Obama administration scandal. We have it and it's not a trivial personal thing, but something which involves the nation as a whole.

Obama seems to be a man who is vexed by his duty, that his solutions are the right way and if that conflicts with the Constitution then the latter loses. One might say "But Bush was the one who started it all!" That's true as far as it goes, but when he adopted that which he publicly disdained and then built on it became his as well.

Narcissism does not become the Office.

 

[Texashiker]

The first amendment doesn't protect publishing classified information,

According to you from a previous thread the president can classify, declassify anything he wants.

So whether or not something is truly "classified" is subjective to the presidents opinion at the time. Which is just a couple of steps from being a monarchy.

 

[fskimospy]

It reads like a chain email and I don't buy it, however I do question how Obama views the Constitution.

We have a person in office who (for whatever reason) who seems willing to not only disregard his oath of office, but does so in a cavalier way and I use his statement of 100% freedom vs 100% security as an example. What else might he dismiss if it suited such a person?

About a month ago you were waiting for an example of an Obama administration scandal. We have it and it's not a trivial personal thing, but something which involves the nation as a whole.

Obama seems to be a man who is vexed by his duty, that his solutions are the right way and if that conflicts with the Constitution then the latter loses. One might say "But Bush was the one who started it all!" That's true as far as it goes, but when he adopted that which he publicly disdained and then built on it became his as well.

Narcissism does not become the Office.

This isn't a scandal about Obama in the traditional sense. The scandal here isn't that Obama did something illegal, it is that what he did is most likely LEGAL. That's what's so terrible.

Threads like this are stupid though because they mix in a bunch of ridiculous and stupid complaints with a bunch of very real ones.

 

[fskimospy]

According to you from a previous thread the president can classify, declassify anything he wants.

So whether or not something is truly "classified" is subjective to the presidents opinion at the time. Which is just a couple of steps from being a monarchy.

Yes, the president has classification authority. That authority is statutory, not constitutional. Yes, whether information is classified is subject to the president's opinion. If Congress doesn't like how he is using it, they are free to change it.

Instead of being a monarchy, that's exactly how things are supposed to work.

 

[Texashiker]

Yes, the president has classification authority. That authority is statutory, not constitutional.

So he can be stripped of that power by congress?

 

[fskimospy]

So he can be stripped of that power by congress?

Yes, of course. He never will be, but it is theoretically possible.