oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Americans like you don't know s**t about the origination clause and none of you have any desire to learn about it.

rumitoid

Do you know about nullification bills and law? No matter.

Again, you matter of factly say something really nasty: "Americans like you..." Not that it really says anything, oldroy, I spent nine months in Nam. I have worked all my life, raised a family (one daughter and a grandchild just turned a year), volunteer at a Christian TV station five days a week, work with adicts and alcoholics everyday of the week, and like Bonanza.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will concede the amount of executive orders;

Source = factcheck
Bush = 160
Obama = 139
(In the same time frame)

<The night is still young as they say...>


Same source;

[It’s true, however, that Obama is employing his executive powers now more than ever before during his presidency.
Obama has been sidestepping Congress through his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, a series of executive actions that he claims benefit the middle class through infrastructure projects and economic policy changes.
He also skirted Senate approval in January when he appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointments were &#127775;unprecedented&#127775; because he made them when the Senate was technically not in recess, prompting legal challenges from conservative groups.]

"Bush went around the constitution in violating the 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. He pushed for the Patriot Act and it was passed. He pushed for the Military Commissions Act which he used to allow him to suspend Habeas Corpus for the only time since Lincoln did it during the Civil War. The Constitution allows that to be done under two circumstances. 1. An invasion by a foreign country, and 2. I**********n. Those are the only two exceptions that would permit suspending Habeas Corpus.

Bush and Lincoln both Suspended Habeas Corpus;

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, really, a time of shame this is..."

To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."


Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

What Bush and Cheney did was bypass the FISA Court and engage in warrantless wiretapping of citizens. That's a violation of the 4t Amendment. All they needed to do was go the FISA Court which rubber stamps such requests, but that would be too much of a bother. Why do that when they can just go around them. Who cares about whether its constitutional or not?

So, the 6th Amendment that states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."... was tossed.

And lets not forget the 8th amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment. Torturing prisoners violates that."
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

<I should've seen the Bush angle coming... , (he's not president anymore) anyway, yes Bush may have violated amendments 4,6,and 8, with the patriot act, and M.C.A.
This was done (considering political time frame), not long after the September 11th,2001 attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Bush, nor am I a fan of executive orders, these acts were done to protect the country at that time(6years ago, almost 7), with the war on terror still relatively fresh. >

<Habeas corpus; now one could argue that reason #1, [An invasion by a foreign country,] could apply to the use of our airplanes, by foreigners, to crash into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. (who knows what could've been... with the other plane in PA.)>

<Your prophet obama has violated the same amendments, and avoided FISA in the same manner, pushing obamacare,which nobody can seem to conceive a good idea for, and I sure don't put it past him to call on # 2, when the i**********n comes to him.
Also, your prophet ran on a campaign of "hope & change", mostly supported by your above claims of Bush. Obama has changed very little, to nothing at all, he has only exacerbated the patriot act, (see NSA scandal) after saying he would do away with it, bring our troops home, and close Gitmo(by the way, are they still torturing people there?....nahh ....(would you be able to note just one positive thing obama has done for this country?)

<Future reference: no need to write down what the amendments state.>
<><><><><>~><~><>~>~>~>~><<>

"Well, as you are an originalist and I know you wouldn't admit to being a r****t or W***e S*********t, how do you justify Article I, Section 2, (basing a states representation in the House of Representatives on its FREE population and three -fifths of "all other persons" within its territories. OR...Article I, Section 9 (barring Congress from abolishing the s***e trade before 1808) OR>>>Article 4, Section 2, (providing for the return of runaway s***es)"
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

<I don't recall refering to myself as an "originalist", but thats ok.>

<In regards to Article 1,sec.2;

I do as most any rational person would do, and that's put into perspective the date, in which the most eloquent of words, were put to paper. (The Constitution) The definition of the word r****m, could not apply in that time period, as it was only the white mans words that mattered ,w***e s*******y was all there was. It wasn't a practice then, it was fact, it's just the way it was, as for reasons I'm sure I don't need me to elaborate. It is a moot point, trying to pretend, or act as if those words were written yesturday. Nobody could foresee what would be bestowed upon the black race. It's not as if a black man is responsible for the emancipation proclamation, it was achieved by a white man, a republican none the less. (a moderate) It still baffles me why anyone of the black race today registers as a democrat.(just kidding there, I know why)
Article 1, section 9, just boils down to money. Article 4,sec. 2, is the same, as s***es were refered to as proprty, property has value. While we're at it, I sure hope you're not one of those that think that s***ery started in America, or that it was even started by the white man. History shows that black people use to trade people of their own race, long before the constitution was written, as you may or may not know.
So please, don't start with the nonsense that, just because I love my constitution, that it makes me a r****t. What would you say, if I were to tell you that I am African American.....could you circle that square for me?>

Adagio

>"I will concede the amount of executive orders;"<

Well...that's a start. An admission that you were wrong about something, shows real promise. You probably might want to recognize that there is nothing unconstitutional in issuing executive orders. Presidents have done this many times. Some, more than others.

>"It’s true, however, that Obama is employing his executive powers now more than ever before during his presidency."<

And that surprises you?? Every piece of legislation is filibustered. Even a bill that was introduced by McConnell was filibustered...by McConnell himself, because the Dems and Obama supported it. McConnell filibustered his own Bill.

If Obama can do some things that don't require Congress to v**e on, he's going to do it. You find that a problem??? Why?? Is it because it prevents the Republicans from obstruction?? Well...isn't that too bad? The Republicans have no intention of allowing anything to be done. They can't be seen as cooperating with Dems or they'll be Primary'd in the next e******n.

>"Obama has been sidestepping Congress through his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, a series of executive actions that he claims benefit the middle class through infrastructure projects and economic policy changes."<

Great! I'm all for it.

>"He also skirted Senate approval in January when he appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointments were &#127775;unprecedented&#127775; because he made them when the Senate was technically not in recess, prompting legal challenges from conservative groups."<

It's not unprecedented. You may recall that Bush appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN during a recess. BTW...what was the outcome of those legal challenges ?

>"<I should've seen the Bush angle coming... , (he's not president anymore) anyway, yes Bush may have violated amendments 4,6,and 8, with the patriot act, and M.C.A. "<

Yes you should have before hurling your garbage toward this president and stomping your feet about how he's taking away your rights, while ignoring the very thing you're complaining about with the previous president. What it illustrates is your selective outrage. Then you concede that; Yes, Bush may have done that.

>"This was done (considering political time frame), not long after the September 11th,2001 attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Bush, nor am I a fan of executive orders, these acts were done to protect the country at that time(6years ago, almost 7), with the war on terror still relatively fresh. "<

You're making excuses to justify the trashing of the Constitution. You know...that document you love so much. Being a Constitutional Conservative, how can you accept that?? You may not be a fan of Bush, but I'll bet you v**ed for him twice. What Bush did with Habeas Corpus was totally unconstitutional. There are only two reasons that this is allowed. 1. An invasion from another country. ( 911 doesn't qualify as an invasion of our country) and 2. I**********n. ( The Civil War justified suspension and Lincoln used it) There is no i**********n happening here.

Bush/Cheney is the only administration in our history to deny Habeas Corpus without justification. So that actually would violate the 5th Amendment. So you can add that to the 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments that were completely trashed. How does that sit with your Constitutional Conservative sensibilities?

>"<Habeas corpus; now one could argue that reason #1, [An invasion by a foreign country,] could apply to the use of our airplanes, by foreigners, to crash into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. (who knows what could've been... with the other plane in PA.)>


No. I'm afraid not. Not without imposing the most twisted logic one can come up with. There was no invasion of this country. No troops on our soil. An attack? Yes. An invasion? No!

>"<Your prophet obama has violated the same amendments, and avoided FISA in the same manner, pushing obamacare,which nobody can seem to conceive a good idea for, and I sure don't put it past him to call on # 2, when the i**********n comes to him. "<

No. He hasn't. And he's not my prophet, so you might want to restrain yourself from using the childish sarcasm. He has NOT avoided FISA, that's the huge difference. He has consistently gone through FISA in all instances, and what on earth does FISA have to do with Obamacare??? Do you even know what the FISA Court is??? It's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. FISC also known as FISA. Obamacare has nothing to do with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. And you are suggesting that an i**********n is coming?? Really? :roll: You people have a death wish don't you? Well, when that happens you can rest assured that he would be in compliance with the constitution.

>"(see NSA scandal) after saying he would do away with it, bring our troops home, and close Gitmo(by the way, are they still torturing people there?....nahh ....(would you be able to note just one positive thing obama has done for this country?)"<

The NSA is not a scandal. The NSA was data mining under a program initiated by Admiral Poindexter during the Bush years. It's a program known as DARPA. Also known as Total Information Awareness. (TIA)


Total Information Awareness (TIA) is the name of a massive U.S. data mining project focused on scanning travel, financial and other data from public and private sources with the goal of detecting and preventing t***snational threats to national security. TIA has also been called Terrorism Information Awareness. The program was part of the Homeland Security Act and, after its creation in January 2003, was managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In September 2003, U.S. Congressional negotiators agreed to terminate the program and ceased funding. in 2006, however, news agencies reported that software developed for it had been shifted to other agencies, specifically the National Security Agency (NSA). Your scandal was already a scandal two years before Obama was ever elected.

>"I don't recall refering to myself as an "originalist", but thats ok.>"<

So you aren't an originalist? You stated this: "
>"and yes in most if not all cases this document should be followed to the letter."<...So when is ok NOT to follow the constitution to the letter?

>"I do as most any rational person would do, and that's put into perspective the date, in which the most eloquent of words, were put to paper."<

If that's the case, then you cannot be selective about that for your own agenda and object to it being seen differently by others that don't agree with you. Not without presenting yourself as a hypocrite.

>"The definition of the word r****m, could not apply in that time period, as it was only the white mans words that mattered ,w***e s*******y was all there was."<

Of course it could. People of that time knew that s***ery was an a*********n. The document was in fact a W***e S*********t Male Dominated document. Our Constitution was written exclusively for White Men.

>"It is a moot point, trying to pretend, or act as if those words were written yesturday.

That's exactly the point of every argument over the meaning of the Constitution. Conservatives, Constitutional or otherwise, insist on their own strict reading of the Constitution. But avoid this sticking point. Times have changed since the writing of that document.

>"Nobody could foresee what would be bestowed upon the black race. It's not as if a black man is responsible for the emancipation proclamation, it was achieved by a white man, a republican none the less. (a moderate) It still baffles me why anyone of the black race today registers as a democrat.(just kidding there, I know why)"<

>"Obviously with Black Men being held in bondage, it would be up to White Abolitionists to take up the cause of the S***es. These were NOT conservatives. They were the most liberal thinking people of their day. Their numbers grew, and Lincoln eventually saw s***ery as the a*********n that it was. Lincoln would not be considered a Conservative. It was the Conservative Democrats from the South that seceded before he was even inaugurated. They saw Lincoln as a threat to the institution of s***ery. They were right. He was.

>"Article 1, section 9, just boils down to money."<

LMAO>... Money?? Lets get real ok?? It completely targets the S***e Trade. It's a bit more selective than simply saying, "Money". The mere fact of putting section 9 into the constitution as a direct reference to the institution of s***ery in this country, as codified into our framework and accepting s***ery as an institution sanctioned by the Constitution is a bit more than saying, it's just about money.

>"While we're at it, I sure hope you're not one of those that think that s***ery started in America, or that it was even started by the white man."<

Nobody thinks that, and that's completely irrelevant, and amounts to a pathetic justification for s***ery. Who cares where it was started and who started it? S***ery existed in the time of Moses. None of that is a justification for doing it here.

>"I do as most any rational person would do, and that's put into perspective the date, in which the most eloquent of words, were put to paper."<

Then for the sake of consistency you might want to consider the 2nd Amendment falling into the same reasoning. Consider the time frame and the fact that the Framers couldn't possibly have foreseen the advancement in weaponry 200 years later. They stated that "A well regulated m*****a, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The purpose of the third clause, is stated in the first. A well regulated m*****a, necessary to the security of a free state...We have that in abundance today. We didn't back then. So...following your own logic, why do you consider the times, when they wrote the s***ery statutes, but ignore the "times" with regard to the 2nd Amendment? Why is it permissible in one case, and not the other??

>"Article 4,sec. 2, is the same, as s***es were refered to as proprty, property has value."<

What you're ignoring is the fact that S***ery was actually addressed within the constitution making it part of the institution of this country. It was acceptable. S***ery was an acceptable practice in this country and is actually addressed within the constitution. They would not have had to address it, if it wasn't part of the fabric of the nations interests. The very fact of thinking S***es as property illustrates the ignorance that was displayed on the part of our framers with regards to the rights of all men.

>" What would you say, if I were to tell you that I am African American.....could you circle that square for me?>

I'd say that you're a person that v**es against his own interests.

As for your pictures, the very idea that you would compare Obama to Hitler is beyond stupid. It's an example of idiocy on steroids. Obama has not invaded another country. He has not rounded up an entire race of people and put them into camps for extermination. He has no ambition to conquer the world. I doubt if you've ever understood that anytime you want to compare any of our presidents to Hitler, you've lost the debate. I couldn't stand Bush and Cheney. But even those two wouldn't compare to Hitler. You might also want to rethink the very reason for that absurd comparison. The Swastika was the symbol for the N**i Party. It was not a logo for Hitler. The people that come up with this crap have s**t for brains. The people that use the s**t for brains comparison are even lower on the intelligence metric.

Adagio

Fck off

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A person that v**es against HIS OWN interests!!!

Wow, spoken like a true diseased liberal. When one goes to the polls, it shouldn't be for self interest! It should be about whats best for the direction of this country. This is case in point as to why you libs, with your Marxist views screw everything up. The attitude that you "gotta" get yours, is maddening, if you were ever curious as to why conservatives don't like libs, well, that there is it in a nutshell.

Your only comment is on pictures, downloaded from the Internet!!(thanks but I can't take credit for them)
The pic of the two symbols... they are a comparison to their egos. The statement is correct, they ARE the only two with their own symbols. Whether your prophet has, or has not invaded another country is debatable, but what is not debatable is that he has invaded this country!....odd it is that he went from a relative nobody, to the highest office in the land, with absolutely nothing nothing of merit to stand behind. He is a joke, with an awful punch line. The sooner he is impeached, the sooner this country can move forward again.

Nothing of my words....really!?

It does appear that Alex is correct. You drank way too much kool-aid, so much so, that your kool-aid goggles are permanent. So much for a debate, and I had so much more to educate you on, oh well. My mistake was in guessing you worthy, I'll be moving on now. (Geez'um talk about idiocy on steroids)

Oh Btw, don't think that I didn't notice you neglected my comment on the deficit. Nothing in regards to what your prophet has done to the deficit, how convenient of you.
Obama HAS increased the national deficit, in just four years, more than all 43 presidents before him, COMBINED!(what a guy&#128077;)

Also, I noticed you were unable to provide an answer to my question. "Would you provide just one example of a positive thing Obama has done for this country?".... Guess it was a tricky question.

Please don't bother posting back to me, your too confused for me to help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa! My apology. For some reason your comments weren't there when I first looked, they showed up when I went to edit my post back to you. I'll need some further time for a review. Don't know why this happens, but it's not the first. Again I apologize, but technically not my fault. Please stand by, I'll be back soon.

Yankee Clipper

Now that's an intelligent answer, isn't it.

Adagio

>"Wow, spoken like a true diseased liberal. When one goes to the polls, it shouldn't be for self interest! It should be about whats best for the direction of this country."<

Nobody is going to be inclined to v**e for lowering the taxes on the rich while raising them on the poor and middle class. Attempting to convince them that this is in the best interest of the country is laughable. They aren't going to v**e to cut Social Security or Medicare for the sake of Republican theories on economics that would destroy their lives. That's not something in the best interest of the country.

>" The attitude that you "gotta" get yours, is maddening, if you were ever curious as to why conservatives don't like libs, well, that there is it in a nutshell. "<

No doubt. However people have paid into these programs and are entitled ( yes I use the word entitled) to receive what they've paid for. They have every right to hold the government to its promise. It's their money.

>"Your only comment is on pictures, downloaded from the Internet!!(thanks but I can't take credit for them)
The pic of the two symbols... they are a comparison to their egos."<

You posted them. There are millions of pictures on the internet. You chose those. Try taking some responsibility for what you post. They didn't magically appear on your post. You have editorial decision on the content of your posts. Any comparison to one of our presidents to Hitler is a pathetic and childish move by a loser. You lose the debate when you resort to those kind of tactics.

>"The statement is correct, they ARE the only two with their own symbols."<

As if that has some significant relevance. I already told you, the Swastika was the symbol for the N**i Party. It wasn't Hitler's logo. The Obama campaign logo is exactly that. You resort to stupid and forced attempts to make a salient point. And...of course you fail.

>"Whether your prophet has, or has not invaded another country is debatable, but what is not debatable is that he has invaded this country!....odd it is that he went from a relative nobody, to the highest office in the land, with absolutely nothing nothing of merit to stand behind."<

Oh Christ....he "invaded" this country??? You lose. :thumbdown:

>""Would you provide just one example of a positive thing Obama has done for this country?".... Guess it was a tricky question."<

Sure. He k**led bin Laden like he said he would. He also ended the war in Iraq like he said he would. You asked for one. I gave you two. I could give you a laundry list if you want, but why bother. You're an i***t and it would be wasted on you.

You're dismissed moron.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Slow down tough guy, I'm trying to get back to you from the other post. Its taking me a little longer than I anticipated as I am dealing with an issue at home, its coming though.

Just for the record, you don't have the authority or the intellect to dismiss anyone. I'm asking for a little patience, and relax with the name calling. As you may or may not have noticed, I haven't commented on any other posts, I'm not ignoring you, you can trust in that.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<"Well...that's a start. An admission that you were wrong about something, shows real promise. You probably might want to recognize that there is nothing unconstitutional in issuing executive orders. Presidents have done this many times. Some, more than others.">

- Thank you, a wise person once told me that, "A person can not learn, or comprehend, unless they're willing/able to admit being wrong"
I do recognize executive orders are not considered unconstitutional, and they are used for to often for my liking, however I do recognize its validity in times of recess, and national emergency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And that surprises you?? Every piece of legislation is filibustered. Even a bill that was introduced by McConnell was filibustered...by McConnell himself, because the Dems and Obama supported it. McConnell filibustered his own Bill."

- No, it just irks me a little. Maybe Mitch had a momentary laps of reason, and someone advised him in the error of his ways, or maybe he realized it on his own, it only takes one. Whichever the case may be, your stance against Senate rule 22,(I think); shows just what I originally suspected of you, when I asked if you walked in circles to the left. I'll allow myself to take this one step further, I suspect you may even be an organizer for the 'New World Order', but thats just me thinking out loud.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If Obama can do some things that don't require Congress to v**e on, he's going to do it. You find that a problem??? Why?? Is it because it prevents the Republicans from obstruction?? Well...isn't that too bad? The Republicans have no intention of allowing anything to be done. They can't be seen as cooperating with Dems or they'll be Primary'd in the next e******n."

- To your first question...YES!!; the reason is partially stated in your second question. Although I wouldn't use the word "obstruction" I feel that word is more suited to your side of the fence, so to speak. There's nothing wrong with auditing the ink, in the Oval Office.
Your third question only re-enforces my new found suspicions of you. The answer is yes again, it is too bad, not just for you and I, but for the country as a whole. I surely hope the Republican Party wouldn't allow something they don't,won't, or can't agree with it's their duty, as it is for the Democratic Party. Your last sentence there goes both ways, as I'm sure you're aware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Great! I'm all for it."

- You make that abundantly clear; wh**ever 'O' wants, just say yes. Sounds like his campaign rhetoric ...."yes we can" (especially when nobody's looking)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not unprecedented. You may recall that Bush appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN during a recess. BTW...what was the outcome of those legal challenges ?"

-The "unprecedented" part I was trying to stress to you in my earlier post, was that your "omnipotent one", signed an executive order( 138, or139),when there was technically NO RECESS , its NOT uncommon DURING a recess. That, is an action of a dictator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes you should have before hurling your garbage toward this president and stomping your feet about how he's taking away your rights, while ignoring the very thing you're complaining about with the previous president. What it illustrates is your selective outrage. Then you concede that; Yes, Bush may have done that."

- My aren't you protective of your "omnipotent one"; perhaps I was more accurate when I refered to him as your "prophet", now I'm not sure which one I like, guess I could always alternate. "Stomping" my feet as you say; I only do that when I am laghing very hard, and I'll have you know you're getting very close to making me do that. I tend to ignore things done it the past, that I can't change, or do a single thing to change. Maybe you could try letting go of the past, and join with everyone in the present, and recognize that your prophet is a false prophet, and do what you can in order to stop his nonsense of today, or in the near future. That IS, within your control. Furthermore my "rage" IS selective, evidenced by my selecting you, although I would hardly refer to it as "rage". And I concede that of most if not all past presidents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You're making excuses to justify the trashing of the Constitution. You know...that document you love so much. Being a Constitutional Conservative, how can you accept that?? You may not be a fan of Bush, but I'll bet you v**ed for him twice. What Bush did with Habeas Corpus was totally unconstitutional. There are only two reasons that this is allowed. 1. An invasion from another country. ( 911 doesn't qualify as an invasion of our country) and 2. I**********n. ( The Civil War justified suspension and Lincoln used it) There is no i**********n happening here. "

- It's as if you're internal clock froze in 2006!; I am not excusing anything. It's in the past along with you, and I as well as the rest of us are forced to accept it. That 9/11 doesn't qualify is only your opinion and you're entitled to it. As far as the i**********n , well you just hold on to your hat, if your prophet keeps up with the lies and scandals, and overly obvious lack of leadership (which he can't help because he hasn't the ability to lead), it just may happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bush/Cheney is the only administration in our history to deny Habeas Corpus without justification. So that actually would violate the 5th Amendment. So you can add that to the 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments that were completely trashed. How does that sit with your Constitutional Conservative sensibilities?"

- Again this is in the past, can't change it now, so move on. It didnt sit well then, and still doesn't. You need to recognize the things you can change, and things you can't, and have the wisdom to know the difference. It's 2013, and Obama is the president, come join us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No. I'm afraid not. Not without imposing the most twisted logic one can come up with. There was no invasion of this country. No troops on our soil. An attack? Yes. An invasion? No! "

- Again your opinion. The act was perpetrated by members(or troops of) a foreign enemy that came here (or invaded) to commit acts of terror, by breaking all kinds of laws in the process. (True). Invasion even by a small number is still invasion, no matter how you like to twist it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No. He hasn't. And he's not my prophet, so you might want to restrain yourself from using the childish sarcasm. He has NOT avoided FISA, that's the huge difference. He has consistently gone through FISA in all instances, and what on earth does FISA have to do with Obamacare??? Do you even know what the FISA Court is??? It's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. FISC also known as FISA. Obamacare has nothing to do with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. And you are suggesting that an i**********n is coming?? Really? You people have a death wish don't you? Well, when that happens you can rest assured that he would be in compliance with the constitution."

- Oh, but he has, and the way you try to justify him makes my childish sarcasm relavent. No he has not consistently gone through FISA, thats just plain false. As I have been honest in my responses to you thus far, my example of obamacare was in error, for some reason it was still on my mind. Substitute with NSA, IRS, and DOJ, SCANDALS ; etc.
As far as the death wish, well that almost sounds like a threat, but I know you wouldn't be suggesting something like that, would you? Furthermore I would have no issue with putting my life on the line if it meant impeachment of this Bozo, I'm sure im not alone there. And he would most assuredly bypass the constitution to suppress anything of that nature. Myself and others know he is angling to rewrite things so he can attempt a third term without anything remotely resembling an e******n. I think we will see then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Total Information Awareness (TIA) is the name of a massive U.S. data mining project focused on scanning travel, financial and other data from public and private sources with the goal of detecting and preventing t***snational threats to national security. TIA has also been called Terrorism Information Awareness. The program was part of the Homeland Security Act and, after its creation in January 2003, was managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In September 2003, U.S. Congressional negotiators agreed to terminate the program and ceased funding. in 2006, however, news agencies reported that software developed for it had been shifted to other agencies, specifically the National Security Agency (NSA). Your scandal was already a scandal two years before Obama was ever elected."

-As for this, I'll take your word for the majority of it. Although make no mistake, your "omnipotent one" has internalized this, to spy on the citizens of America.
I do find it funny how earlier, your claim was that there was no scandal, and yet here you say that it was "already" a scandal, you can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it. Sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So you aren't an originalist? You stated this: "
>"and yes in most if not all cases this document should be followed to the letter."<...So when is ok NOT to follow the constitution to the letter?"

- I said it was ok for you to label me as such. IMHO, it is never ok to bypass the constitution, however that is not to say that it doesn't happen, ie; Truman declaring war with Korea, and at other times as well, but that doesn't make it right, only that it does happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If that's the case, then you cannot be selective about that for your own agenda and object to it being seen differently by others that don't agree with you. Not without presenting yourself as a hypocrite. "

- If you say so. I don't what agenda you're refering to, but again, ok, if you say so. It's your opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's exactly the point of every argument over the meaning of the Constitution. Conservatives, Constitutional or otherwise, insist on their own strict reading of the Constitution. But avoid this sticking point. Times have changed since the writing of that document. "

- This was/is my point!, the wording is dated , for some, but the sentiment has not changed. The meaning of the words are still pertinent today. I think here you just reiterated my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
">"Obviously with Black Men being held in bondage, it would be up to White Abolitionists to take up the cause of the S***es. These were NOT conservatives. They were the most liberal thinking people of their day. Their numbers grew, and Lincoln eventually saw s***ery as the a*********n that it was. Lincoln would not be considered a Conservative. It was the Conservative Democrats from the South that seceded before he was even inaugurated. They saw Lincoln as a threat to the institution of s***ery. They were right. He was."

- My point again. B****s were considered 3/5ths of a person then,(for reasons of the census mind you, to determine the number of reps for each state). At that time they did not have any say.
Lincoln was a Republican, a MODERATE, nor would he be considered a liberal as in the way you imply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nobody thinks that, and that's completely irrelevant, and amounts to a pathetic justification for s***ery. Who cares where it was started and who started it? S***ery existed in the time of Moses. None of that is a justification for doing it here."

- I wouldn't say nobody!!, there are plenty that do, about the same number as the people that think this country is a democracy, which it is not. Which is why I raised the question to you, to see if you were maybe one.
I for one care where it started, and where it started, so as to correct the misinformed. No it's not a justification for doing it here, but back then it was considered "past practice", and not thought of as an a*********n until later on, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then for the sake of consistency you might want to consider the 2nd Amendment falling into the same reasoning. Consider the time frame and the fact that the Framers couldn't possibly have foreseen the advancement in weaponry 200 years later. They stated that "A well regulated m*****a, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The purpose of the third clause, is stated in the first. A well regulated m*****a, necessary to the security of a free state...We have that in abundance today. We didn't back then. So...following your own logic, why do you consider the times, when they wrote the s***ery statutes, but ignore the "times" with regard to the 2nd Amendment? Why is it permissible in one case, and not the other??"

- To answer your question about the second amendment, it was written to protect the states from a tyrannical government(ie. the Obama administration), but as you elude to, it is irrational to think that any members of a state could take on todays military, that would be like taking a knife to a tank fight, but at the same time I don't see it right to take it away or abolish it, because it would leave citizens without, at the very least the illusion of having the ability to stand up to a tyrannical government. If some people choose to take a knife to a tank fight, that should be there prerogative. To a lesser degree it gives the citizens to protect themselves from lesser forces, such as the Trayvon Martins of the country. Your posistion is to give all means of self defense away, so we would all be left defenseless so the people I suspect you of organizing for can come in and roll right over us. Well not this guy, I'll be keeping my weapons thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What you're ignoring is the fact that S***ery was actually addressed within the constitution making it part of the institution of this country. It was acceptable. S***ery was an acceptable practice in this country and is actually addressed within the constitution. They would not have had to address it, if it wasn't part of the fabric of the nations interests. The very fact of thinking S***es as property illustrates the ignorance that was displayed on the part of our framers with regards to the rights of all men."

- This is exactly what I was saying. It was that way then, s***ery was common practice, not just here, but worldwide, so why would the framers not address it in establishing the laws of the land, just seems prudent for the times. If what you're saying that my ignorance compares to the framers, then thats fine with me, as I am in good company with some of the brightest minds in history. I'll take that as a compliment, and say thank you.

- I have already addressed the remainder of your post. And good luck with your New World Order. I Hope it is you that comes to take my guns.