Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Jeremiah65

"We have a Constitution!"

28 posts in this topic

http://www.foxnews.c...on-exec-orders/

From the link source...

"House Speaker John Boehner issued a stern warning to President Obama ahead of Tuesday night's State of the Union address: "We have a Constitution. We abide by it. If he tries to ignore it, he's going to run into a brick wall."

OK...not a fan of the source either...but...

What a pack of empty words.

This has been going on since he took office...

burningconstitution03_zpsa9d5201b.jpg

The Repubs and Dem's have been walking all over the Constitution for ages.

Funny he wants to roar about the Constitution now....where was he when NDAA was passed? Where was he when HR347 was passed? Where was he when it came public about the spying on innocent USA citizens? Hmm...no where to be seen...wonder why John?...could it be you personally benefitted in some way by those rights stripping bits of legislation?

Both parties use our founding documents as tools and weapons to further their own agendas...they ignore it when it suits them and they squeal like little girls when the other side uses it to their advantage.

D0uchebags...all of them...there is no two party system...the faux two parties are two wings of the same bird of prey...and we are the prey.

democrats_republicans_are_two_wings_of_the_same_bird_of_prey_zps15f0bb60.jpg

Lady-Liberty-Weeping.jpg

ETA...just found this and had to grab it....too funny...

obamaconstitutionprofessor_zps941af698.jpg

Obamapowerinself_zps7581992f.jpg

Edited by Jeremiah65
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you and "fauxnews" trying to claim now that Executive Orders are not constitutional? Because geez, Bush and Regan had hundreds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you and "fauxnews" trying to claim now that Executive Orders are not constitutional? Because geez, Bush and Regan had hundreds.

Oi vey, the whole "Reagen/Bush did it" response.... :face palm:

There is a reason we have checks and balances. So one branch of the government doesn't become too powerful. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned having a president ruling by executive orders, like some autocrat. "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely".

Also, Jeremiah, was just pointing out how the Republicans will whine and wail about the Constitution when it suits them, as in the example above, but are silent regarding the NDAA, the Patriot Act, and NSA spying on American citizens.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi vey, the whole "Reagen/Bush did it" response.... :face palm:

There is a reason we have checks and balances. So one branch of the government doesn't become too powerful. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned having a president ruling by executive orders, like some autocrat. "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely".

I generally agree that we should not even have EO's. But having set the example for hundreds of years. You can hardly single out Obama has using them differently or autocratically or any other Republican silliness.

The current one raises the minimum wage for FEDERAL workers. As I understand it, almost all federal workers work for the Executive Branch of government. This is overreach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Repubs and Dem's have been walking all over the Constitution for ages.

You were right when you said this, so isn't this...

This has been going on since he took office...

...a little redundant?

And if both sides have been trampling all over your Constitution for ages, then who is really responsible for letting that happen?

Boehner says what he says (as do many other politicians) because it misdirects the people to blame the wrong 'origin'.

Edited by Leonardo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned having a president ruling by executive orders, like some autocrat. "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely".

Actually, they did, which is why the Constitution exists - to basically say "we fought one tyrant*, this piece of paper gives us the right to do it again".

* King George wasn't a tyrant, incidentally, but rather a disinterested tax collector.

But lets let the analogy stand to make a point.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Washington issued 8 executive orders so if they were unconstitutional it would seem the writers of the constitution had ample opportunity to say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were right when you said this, so isn't this...

[/font][/size]

...a little redundant?

And if both sides have been trampling all over your Constitution for ages, then who is really responsible for letting that happen?

Boehner says what he says (as do many other politicians) because it misdirects the people to blame the wrong 'origin'.

Yep...and your point is???

It's the fault of the low info voters who continually elect the same batch of idiots into office...in doing so, these career politicians feel empowered and untouchable...term limits may or may not fix this, but it's a great thought.

And yes...misdirection is a great tool to use on the easily distracted herds...

flockofsheep_zpsf1a6a84d.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...and your point is???

It's the fault of the low info voters who continually elect the same batch of idiots into office...in doing so, these career politicians feel empowered and untouchable...term limits may or may not fix this, but it's a great thought.

And yes...misdirection is a great tool to use on the easily distracted herds...

flockofsheep_zpsf1a6a84d.gif

I appreciate you did criticise Boehner equally as much as Obama in your OP, but all the imagery (with one notable exception) was "Obama is the enemy of our Constitution".

I just think it's wrong to promote that sort of focus on one politician (and, by extension, one Party) being "the problem". I understand that was probably not your intention, and I'm not accusing you of being pro-/anti- anyone in particular. I suppose I would like to see more promotion of the divide that has opened up between 'the People' and 'the political class' to encourage more people to realise it is politics that has become the problem - not one "sides" politics.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, that picture of Obama burning the Constitution could just as well be a pic of Dubya Bush...we can thank him for the Patriot act.

I hate politics...I do not think it should ever be allowed to be a lifetime career. personally, I think it should be about the same as Jury Duty...you get called to serve your community, county, state or country. After a term or two...you go back to whatever you did before your name was pulled out of a hat.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, that picture of Obama burning the Constitution could just as well be a pic of Dubya Bush...we can thank him for the Patriot act.

I hate politics...I do not think it should ever be allowed to be a lifetime career. personally, I think it should be about the same as Jury Duty...you get called to serve your community, county, state or country. After a term or two...you go back to whatever you did before your name was pulled out of a hat.

I agree entirely with your sentiments, and also possibly (I'd have to give it some thought) with your solution. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can hear John now "We have a Constitution, I saw it on my 5th grade field trip and my teacher said it had something to do with running the country or balancing your check book? I was a little unclear on that."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With his ability to just bypass congress, with his magic pen,and using Executive Orders,he can do anything. Kinda like a Dictator...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And having just finished watching his state of the union address,he has promissed to use his magic pen and bypass congress in changing gun laws in the wake of such tragedies as Sandy Hook.What a shocker...Not.Well let's see how long it take's before you will have no rights.Of course he said a lot of thing's. Nice thing's. Matter of fact he said the same thing's he has said before...he even promissed to close Guantanamo.... Again.When all you do is lie,all the talk is just that...Talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If congress won't do it's job what choice does he have? The country needs to be governed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were right when you said this, so isn't this...

[/font][/size]

...a little redundant?

And if both sides have been trampling all over your Constitution for ages, then who is really responsible for letting that happen?

Boehner says what he says (as do many other politicians) because it misdirects the people to blame the wrong 'origin'.

Why is the origin an excuse to continue doing it in practice right now?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If congress won't do it's job what choice does he have? The country needs to be governed

It is being governed, that's just rhetoric. If Congress won't do its job, which isn't always to pass new laws that you like, he doesn't have any choice outside of narrow confines of Executive power. His SOTU speech tonight smacked of "With Congress's help, we can do even more." He thinks he's Congress-Lite.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is being governed, that's just rhetoric. If Congress won't do its job, which isn't always to pass new laws that you like, he doesn't have any choice outside of narrow confines of Executive power. His SOTU speech tonight smacked of "With Congress's help, we can do even more." He thinks he's Congress-Lite.

Isn't always to pass new laws? I guess not. But to set records for fewest laws passed and most federal appointees filibustered. This is dereliction of duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many presidents have used the Executive Order option as head of the Executive Branch. Makes sense, right?

There are checks and balances, and I agree the idea of bypassing them through a form of 'Executive Override' could lead to abuse of power.

We should keep a close eye on any president using the EO option - regardless of party affiliation.

One dingus with power, regardless of political slant, still has power..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wants to change the constitution because it was made up by the founding fathers who were mostly British ex-pats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate you did criticise Boehner equally as much as Obama in your OP, but all the imagery (with one notable exception) was "Obama is the enemy of our Constitution".

I just think it's wrong to promote that sort of focus on one politician (and, by extension, one Party) being "the problem". I understand that was probably not your intention, and I'm not accusing you of being pro-/anti- anyone in particular. I suppose I would like to see more promotion of the divide that has opened up between 'the People' and 'the political class' to encourage more people to realise it is politics that has become the problem - not one "sides" politics.

I agree that one party is not the problem. But this is as good a time as any to start pointing fingers. The man is openly saying he is a dictator, and congress can no longer stop him. Not that it will matter. They are gonna do what they want anyway.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't always to pass new laws? I guess not. But to set records for fewest laws passed and most federal appointees filibustered. This is dereliction of duty.

Their duty to the Constitution you mean? They should also do away with bad laws if avoiding dereliction is the goal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't always to pass new laws? I guess not. But to set records for fewest laws passed and most federal appointees filibustered. This is dereliction of duty.

I prefer when they don't pass laws...the more laws they pass and barriers they put up, the less freedom we have...fact.

It is not their job to continuously and constantly restrict our freedoms...there job is to manage our country and protect our freedom...this is not what we have been getting.

And...I think if you check into the number of bills written and passed into law...you'd be quite surprised...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An outstanding post Jeremiah! :tu:

Last year or two the Congress opened by having different members read parts of the Constitution.

Then, those same members went on to nullify Habeas Corpus, and systematically violate the Fourth Amendment. It's a cruel joke.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An outstanding post Jeremiah! :tu:

Last year or two the Congress opened by having different members read parts of the Constitution.

Then, those same members went on to nullify Habeas Corpus, and systematically violate the Fourth Amendment. It's a cruel joke.

They like to dangle meat in front of a Lion's cage.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.