Obama’s Constitutional Crisis

Article link

This entry was posted in On the web. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Obama’s Constitutional Crisis

  1. ★FALCON★ says:

    Martial Law over ObamaCare? I wouldn't put it past this megalomaniac.

  2. Joseph_of_Steel says:

    There is no Constitutional crisis.

    Obama long ago abandoned the Constitution.

  3. LibertyWriter says:

    Which hospital will you go to for health care? Public or private? That will be where the real trouble begins. Let the Fed set up an exchange in Texas. When they try to obstruct an alternative, there will be hell to pay.

  4. GaltFan says:

    "The Constitution specifically states that the President must be “a natural born citizen” with both parents being citizens of the United States."

    Wrong.

    • BronxZionist says:

      He also fails to distinguish between nullification and interposition, or make it clear that both have been rejected.
      And of course there is no mention that George Washington was appalled by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and even said they would lead to the dissolution of the union or to "coercion". (Clearly he was correct.)
      (The conveniently despised or endorsed Lincoln meanwhile noted that even as a contract, such are not liable to unilateral change by one side. Clearly he was not aware of the Darth Vader Privilege in regards to that.)
      And even more he fails to note that nullification and interposition have been used almost casually by everyone who has become upset at something the federal government has done, from the protests against the Alien and Sedition Acts, to the New England Federalist protests against Jefferson's Embargo of 1807, to the Southern protests against various tarriffs, to the Southern secession causing the Civil War, to Southern Democratic protests against integration, and now back to Republican protests against Obamacare. Whenever one side fails they want to call a mulligan on the union and demand a liberum veto rather than follow the Constitutional forms, all while expecting to be taken seriously in the hope that no one will actually check the background of the theory they are citing. I for one am not impressed.

      • DB523 says:

        Hi BZ & GF. Thank you to both of you for your posts the past couple of days. GF posted.. we should stay mad, but back away from the cliff… good words GF. And BZ, thank you so much for your Second Bill of Rights.

        My heart feels like the smell of that week old dish cloth wadded up behind the faucet… I keep trying to remember that even during the Hundred Years War…. people lived, procreated, farmed… what not, since here we still are. But things sure do stink. Your posts help.

        • GaltFan says:

          BZ's contribution was more substantial than mine. What is aggravating me to no end is that all of the media is STILL getting the Roberts decision wrong. He did not establish the legality of the tax/penalty as written in ObamaTax. What he did do was to simply affirm a long recognized (GRR!!!) power for congress to fund social programs using their power to tax. I KNOW I am right, why doesn't anybody else get it?

          • DB523 says:

            Agreeing to have orange juice for breakfast does mean you agree to crush the orange for the juice….

            While technically Roberts may not have "legalized" ObamaCare… he did agree to continue the long recognized habit for Congress to have orange juice for breakfast…

            • GaltFan says:

              Nah, I was wrong. I originally read only part of the Roberts decision because I had read some incorrect (and poorly written) analysis that confused the matter some. When I got to the part in the decision that made that analysis seem clear I figured the poor idiot just missed the key piece to tie it all together. Now that I have read it all* I am fully aware of what Roberts did. I picked some parts out and may post it later so we can all share in his glorious BS…

              *When I say "all" I mean his opinion on the CC and the tax/penalty ruse.

      • LibertyWriter says:

        Except when it is for all the marbles.

    • Stephen_Brady says:

      As much as I hate to do it … nothing personal! … you're right, on this issue.

      A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive...

      Remember that Barry Goldwater was challenged on the basis that he was born in Arizona, prior to its becoming a State. Also, John McCaine was challenged because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Both challenges were thrown out.

      Let's defeat Zero and his ideas, not use legal trickery to bring him down. That would only result in violece.

      • GaltFan says:

        A bit confused about the "nothing personal", but of course I'm right. I do think Osshole was born in Hawaii, but wants to hide something that B.C. says. Being born here is enough, otherwise the whole "anchor baby" thing wouldn't work. A friend of mine is a naturalized citizen. He went back to the old country for a few years, got hitched, had a baby and came back. His wife and his daughter had to apply for legal status to come here, and then became citizens playing by the rules. His wife had another baby before she attained citizen status, but since their son was born on American soil he was instantly a "natural born citizen", and is thus eligible to run for POTUS once he reaches age 35. I don't know why something so simple confuses so many people.

        We WILL bring him down the right way. He will continue to help us in our cause…

        • Stephen_Brady says:

          The "nothing personal" comment refers to my wish that Obama could be proven not to be a natural-born citizen. So I had to agree with you on an issue on which I wish we were both wrong.

  5. Oregontea says:

    Go governors, do not comply.

    We have an out. It is constitutional.

    I am now a muslim, I will not comply.

    Excuse me….time to pray…..

    • LibertyWriter says:

      Better watch your head there, bub.

      • Oregontea says:

        If obama can say he is a christian, then I can say I am muslim. We doit for the same reasons.Truth of the matter is irrelevant, in both cases.

        • LibertyWriter says:

          Yep, but the penalties of renouncing are different.

          • Oregontea says:

            So true. I-Me-Mine has suggested Amish. No penalties, no compliance.I am now Amish.Gonna go make a chair now. Wagon wheels need grease.

            • LibertyWriter says:

              Oh! but the pies you get to eat.

              • Oregontea says:

                Sounds like a good trade off.Mmmm. I like pie.How is your pop? I had lunch with mine yesterday and even though hehas healed physically from his last stroke, he is not all thereanymore mentally. Very much like Alzheimers. My mom has sufferedfrom that for 10 years so far. My folks are near gone. Sad, damn sad.

    • I_Me_Mine says:

      I'm taking the Amish route….