Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You think our Constitution's adherence

Posted By: sm on 2008-10-19
In Reply to: I am tired of the right wing grasping at straws. (nm) - Enough Already

is grasping at straws?  I think you lost your grasp on reality.  If he has nothing to hide, what's the big deal?  See, this is what people do when they don't want to own up to something, is bury it in our complicated justice system. 

Besides, the attorney who filed this lawsuit is a lifelong DEMOCRAT.  Hard to swallow, I know, but follow it with some of your Obama Koolaid and it'll all feel better.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

I just noticed your post above. Nice adherence. nm

Well, actually, the constitution says war
Congress did NOT declare war.....Bush started a war but did not declare war...He got around that by saying we were going in because of other things and would be out quickly but, of course, it was a war and we are definitely not out. Not one candidate has the guts to say they would be pulled immediately except for Ron Paul.
The constitution has very little to do with it,
.
Constitution? (sm)
Isn't that the huge red, white and blue monster that Bush slayed with his shining Patriot Act sword?  I thought it was dead.
1. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land. The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and under the UN Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq. Accordingly, if the war violates international law then it also thereby violates U.S. law.

2. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone has the power to declare war.
Oh, pul-eeeze. The Constitution says nothing about it
basically no rights at all.

Okay, so let's say you, as a pro-lifer-person, talk with some woman into having a child she didn't plan, doesn't want, can't afford, will get her kicked out of her house, or whatever. So she has it. Then what? Do you just go on your merry way forever after, or are you prepared to take some responsibility for having meddled in this hypothetical woman's private affairs, and help to raise, get medical care for, and educate this child?
74.19% McCain, 70.97 with the Constitution....
party candidate. In the single digits with Obama.
What a dimwit...the constitution has EVERYTHING
least it did until freeloaders and jackasses got ahold of it and have turned it into a joke almost.
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.

Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
There's always the Constitution Party....sm
Chuck Baldwin is their candidate. I really like his platform as he is very conservative and has some really good ideas. Unfortunately, I doubt there is much chance he will win, but if feeling good about your vote is important to you, then check him out.

http://www.baldwin08.com/
You think the constitution should be amended?????
That is treason. You have no right to change our constitution.

You think it's logic to change it just so you get what you want?

You need to let it go.
Read the Constitution lately?
Do you embody the philosophy and beliefs of every single person you have ever encountered in your life time? I spent 50 years of my life listening to a staunch Goldwater republican preach her sermons to me, sometimes on a daily basis. This was my own mother. Not an ounce of it rubbed off on me.

It is not shocking or disturbing to me in the least that Rev Wright, who grew up in the midst of the 60s turmoil, embraces this world view. My understanding of Obama's relation to him and to the community outreach programs of Trinity Church is different than yours. I find Rev Wright's "extremism" no different than the extremism that comes pouring out of the evangelical Christian Right. If they are to be tolerated, then so is he. It's called inclusion and it is what America aspires toward.

Throughout his lifetime, Obama has demonstrated the capacity to LISTEN to opposing viewpoints, analyze them and put them into proper perspective. This is a quality that I admire in a candidate who seeks to bring unity among us. The first step toward accomplishing that is the ability to examine ALL viewpoints, to identify common threads that each share with one another, create policy on centrist positions that involve compromise on the part of the exteme factions and to promote those policies for the common good of all Americans. That is what putting country first is REALLY all about.

Good luck will selling that idea that the notion of equality for all is a socialist precept.


Since the Constitution does not state
That to be POTUS the parents of a US born child also has to be US born themselves....then that's what I mean. Maybe you should study up on the Constitution. It was written for a reason.
Another trouncing of the Constitution? sm

It seems this will never end.  I'm beginning to think, in light of this election and everything surrounding it, that Bush was right......"It's just a piece of paper."


Barack Obama has appointed Sen. Hillary Clinton has secretary of state, an appointment America's Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution.


The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term.


The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."


DurClinton's current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers was increased from $186,600 to $191,300. Since the salary is scheduled to again be raised in January 2009, not only Clinton but all sitting Senate members could be considered constitutionally ineligible to serve in Obama's Cabinet.


For more info........ http://wnd.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82374


I have to wonder if you were so upset about the constitution (sm)
while Bush was butchering it over at least the last 4 years.
Demise of the USA and Constitution?...

OK ... maybe I've not been paying enough attention ... so I was a bit unaware when I got this info in my email inbox last week ...

I think it's worth some attention ... tho I can't pretend to know all the answers ...

I've VERY concerned about the concept, and the "predictions" ...



Here's the message:





IT'S ALREADY STARTED FOLKS..BE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON....



http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text



SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

According to David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty', based out of Merrifield Virginia , website: http://www.citizensunited.org/

the above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now!

This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.

The noble sounding name of this bill, 'The Global Poverty Act' is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!

In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.

According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?

n The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.

n A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.

n A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons --which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

n The ratification of the ' Kyoto ' global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.

Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.

It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.

Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.


No, the "hatched job" on the constitution is already
nm
The constitution will most likely be changed for him.
nm
Yawn. The constitution is and always has been
The founding fathers set it up that way. That's why we have provisions for amendments...a basic concept that seems to escape you. While you are on that soap box about free speech, please explain to me why Obama's comments about H, OR and RL do not qualify without his being subjected to all this terminal self-righteous indignation? Arguments based on false premises do not merit further comment.
New preable to the Constitution

This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
 
'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.
 
ARTICLE I: 
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
 
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
 
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
 
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
 
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're
 just not interested in public health care.
 
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair
 
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
 
ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
 
ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
 
ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!


 
ARTICLE XI:
You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
 
It's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?


But the bible is not the same as the constitution

But the bible is not the same as the constitution
Nobody is stopping you from living my biblical precepts. And nowhere have I heard of any attempt to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies (interesting word- ceremony, but I degress). But I was under the impression that one of the critical differences between the USA and almost any Middle Eastern country is that we base our laws on civil liberties rather than letting religion be our guide. There are a lot of things mentioned in the bible forbids that we routinely do- I can't tell you when I last had the sabbath off, nor can I tell you when I last got to stone a harlot. My then widowed father did not step in to marry my aunt when her husband died and zoning laws prevent me from keeping a fattened calf in the garage.

My religious beliefs may not be in keeping with your religious beliefs, and neither one of us should be expected to live our life according to the other's.
As for having knowledge of the constitution
this new judge BO has appointed believes that if states ban guns like D.C. has....it is constitutional.  So it seems as though BO has appointed someone who will help him get rid of our rights to have guns.
right, I second that. This is stipulated in the Constitution......nm
nm
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.

1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).

2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.

Pardon me for saying so but here is no way Bush ever said that about the Constitution.
No way.
This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...
New SCHIP bill, same old reaction
Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 06:29 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Details were still sketchy by Wednesday evening, but House Democrats and the White House are talking about a compromise on the bill that would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Georgia’s PeachCare, a health insurance program for poor kids. The House may vote on it Thursday.

The few details that have already been leaked to reporters, however, indicate that the compromise won’t be changing the minds of the 10 Georgia congressmen who voted against the original bill - and then voted to uphold President Bush’s veto of it - this month.

The compromise would still expand SCHIP, or State Children’s Health Insurance Program, by $35 billion over five years and raise the money through an increase in tobacco taxes, Republicans complained.

It’s not clear yet whether Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon, one of only two House Democrats to vote against the original SCHIP bill, will change his vote - something the state Democratic Party would love to see him do on the eve of Marshall’s re-election campaign.

Rep. Tom Price, a Roswell Republican, has proposed an alternative bill to fund SCHIP through 2012 and he took Wednesday’s news about the compromise as a sign that Democrats have no intention of negotiating the bill with more than a handful of moderate Republicans.

“They’re not working with those of us who are interested in finding a solution, they’re not dealing with our leaders,” Price, a long-time physician, said. “My understanding of the changes they made in the compromise is that they’re nothing but fig leaves. They do nothing to change the structure of the bill.”

The House is expected to approve the compromise if it votes Thursday, just as it did the original version. What Democrats need to see in the vote, however, is whether their new proposal picked up the support of enough Republicans to override Bush’s predictable veto of the bill. The Senate already has those votes.

All that being said...and I won't give my personal opinion as it is already known, other than this: I do strenuously object to one segment of the population being targeted to foot the bill for this, when many of the children affected will have parents who smoke. It will not affect me...I do not smoke, never have. But I still do not think we should target one segment of the population to pay for expanding an entitlement...especially since a good number of the families involved are probably in that segment of the population. To me that is just wrong on a very basic level. They should figure out a way where the cost is more evenly distributed. I don't want my tax burden going up, but if they are going to force this, they should not lay it all at the smokers' feet.

Okay...off my soapbox. lol.
try the 15th amendment to the Constitution...sm

15th Amendment to the Constitution





The "The first vote"
A.R. Waud.
Wood engraving. 1867.
Prints & Photographs Division.
Reproduction Number:
LC-USZ62-19234

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.  


U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution...
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'




Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."


"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.


"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.


The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.


Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."


DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.


State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.


According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.


In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.


Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.


Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."


Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.


Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.


Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.


Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.


The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.


In the 2001 interview, Obama said:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.


And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.



 
















WND





OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'





Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."


"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.


"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.


The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.


Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


(Story continues below)














 




 


"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."


DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.


State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.


According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.







The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention


In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.


Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.


Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."


Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.


Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.


Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.


Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.


The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.


In the 2001 interview, Obama said:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.


And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.


The video is available here:




src=http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"
width=425" height=344"
type=application/x-shockwave-flash>


DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.


"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."


He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.


"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."


DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.


"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."


The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.


"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.


"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.


The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.


"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.


American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."


"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'


"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.


A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."


"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.


American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.


WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.


The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.


The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.


The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.


"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."


 


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364


Get a grip. This is illegal and against the constitution. nm
.
So now I'm a racist because I don't want the constitution violated?
Go figure.
Obama's contempt for our constitution

http://www.rightsidenews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=78


 


 


 


Upholding the constitution is not frivolous
Asking that someone show proof with an original bc is not frivolous and when they turn in a forged document that is fake, asking to see the real one is not frivolous. When you find out the DNC didn't do their job and gave this character a pass (which I'm sure they were well funded for doing this), that gives people the right to question. If we are allowed to vote we should be allowed to know that proof has been met that the candidate passes the qualifications. Would you want to go to a doctor that had just created a degree from their computer and hung it on the wall. - I think not.

As for manipulating voter turn out. Tell that to the republicans who are being turned away from being able to vote. Tell that to ACORN. Tell that to the voters who live in a different state and then go to another state and claim they are homeless.

Show me the proof where republicans are "suppressing democratic votes". Rubbish that keeps being spewed but has been found to be untrue.

Lets talk about Chicago where republicans names are removed from the books and not being allowed to vote.

Lets talk about South Carolina where republicans are being turned away to "come back later" and told the machines were malfunctioning. Funny how they weren't telling the democrats to come back later.

And lets talk about the republican poll observers being turned away. Link below.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V4_mu-PyLZI

The only voter fraud I see here is on the democrats side. - I didn't even mention the two democrat ladies who were caught dumping republican voter ballots in the garbage behind the polling booth.
Thank you but I'm fairly familiar with the Constitution.
You could, however, educate me as to where the Constitution says that children born to ILLEGAL parents are automatic U.S. citizens.
Preserving the integrity of our constitution?
As long as Obama is president, you will not see a preservation of our constitution. And he ain't alone; like so many others before him, our constitution has been all but stomped on and discarded. Obama certainly won't preserve your constitution.


Like I said, principle of the constitution escapes you
xx
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The constitution guarantees us certain rights as Christians...
Jews, Muslims, etc.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please pay special attention to the words: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Does not say anything about keeping it in "churches."

This is still America. If you don't want to read religious posts, close them. But do not attempt to circumvent our constitutional rights. Thank you.
With Dr. Paul, everything is connected to the law of the land, the Constitution. sm
He does not personally condone drug use, but in the Constitution there is no authority that prohibits people from making personal choices.

Here is something more recent from him on that topic.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=40
King Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution...again
House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006



Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.


Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.


The full text of the letter follows:



March 15, 2006


The Honorable Andrew Card


Chief of Staff


The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. Card:


On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.


I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.


Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]


I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.


I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.


The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.


I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.


Sincerely,


Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member


Enclosure


[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).


[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).


[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.


Yeah, he thinks the constitution is a living document....
somehow I don't think the framers had that in mind. lol
Witch trials in 1692....constitution 1787...
puritanism gave way to Christianity. You got it backwards. Respectfully.
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years.  Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date.  What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. 

Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood. 


Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"



  • Anyone born inside the United States
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.


Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html


If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions?  The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms.  What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment?  I bet we would see some really mad women in this country.  Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President  can serve?  Can we say "dictatorship?" 


Ah just that pesky little piece of paper called the Constitution. n/m

Well, I care. I also care about the constitution.nm
nm