Top 10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution During His Presidency.....

[MMC]

That's Right.....now it will all come out in the wash. Naturally the illiberals wont like their Special Man being picked on. But who gives a shit about what illiberals think, Right? :laugh:





But don’t just take it from me. Liberal law professor Garrett Epps (a professional acquaintance) admits (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/obama-leaves-the-constitution-weaker-than-he-found-it/512015/) that “even for those like me who admire Barack Obama, the constitutional record is disturbingly mixed. Obama leaves the Constitution weaker than at the beginning of his terms.” Epps labels Obama’s posture to be one of “aggressive compliance,” torturing statutory language as far as it can go in order to avoid constitutional claims.


Obama Only Furthered the Imperial Presidency


How Obama Ignored Constitutional Checks and Balances


Then, of course, there’s the administration’s abysmal performance (https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/) before the Supreme Court, where its win percentage hovers around 45 percent (as against a historical norm of 60-70 percent). The Justice Department has even suffered nearly 50 unanimous losses, half again as many as under George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. These cases have come in such disparate areas as criminal procedure, religious liberty, property rights, immigration, securities regulation, tax law, and the separation of powers. They have nothing in common other than incredible assertions of federal power. The government’s arguments across this wide variety of cases would essentially allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants without constitutional restraint......snip~

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-presidency/

[Cigar]

President Obama is Retired, anything you don like, just repeal it and stop b!tching

[MMC]

President Obama is Retired, anything you don like, just repeal it and stop b!tching



Liberal law professor Garrett Epps.....snip~


You just gulp it down deep coming from your own kind of people. Then start liking it until we tell you it is okay to not like it. :laugh:

[DGUtley]

17032

[MMC]

Even Jonathon Turley the Lefts TOP Constitutional Attorney says the peep has violated Constitutional Law.

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M702fdfa7be422b7d72bc0010b259f634o0&w=282&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

[Cigar]

It's all about your Boy now, can't divert anymore.

[DGUtley]

It's all about your Boy now, can't divert anymore.

Y'know, if Obama and Hillary had more respect for the Constitution, we'd have never had Trump.

[MMC]

It's all about your Boy now, can't divert anymore.

Its all about cleaning up your boy's mess and fuck ups. Can't avoid responsibility and who's to blame. Deal with it.

[del]

Y'know, if Obama and Hillary had more respect for the Constitution, we'd have never had Trump.
own it, son, own it

[MMC]

own it, son, own it

Pay for it junior.....pay for it.

[DGUtley]

own it, son, own it

Son? I am not your son. My father passed a long time ago. It's demeaning and degrading for you to call me 'son'. I don't like it and please don't do it again. I've been very clear on here my reasons for voting for Trump. I stand by them. We saved the Court; and, hence, the Republic. I appreciate you disagree.

[Ethereal]

Obama had little respect for the constitution, but his Republican counterparts don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, they talk about a big game about the constitution and liberty, but when push comes to shove they embrace authoritarianism just as readily as any Democrat.

[del]

Son? I am not your son. My father passed a long time ago. It's demeaning and degrading for you to call me 'son'. I don't like it and please don't do it again. I've been very clear on here my reasons for voting for Trump. I stand by them. We saved the Court; and, hence, the Republic. I appreciate you disagree.

and on day two of his administration, you try to put the responsibility for his election on the democrats.

pffffft

[DGUtley]

Obama had little respect for the constitution, but his Republican counterparts don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, they talk about a big game about the constitution and liberty, but when push comes to shove they embrace authoritarianism just as readily as any Democrat.

I hope not, but you're probably right. At least with this President, he'll appoint a federalist-list Justice. With a federalist justice, we have a chance of maintaining our constitutional based republican system (little-'r'). With an open-borders, no-respect-for-stare-decisis Court, we didn't stand a chance.

[Ethereal]

17032

Quite the ironic image given the constitutional abuses of the some of the other presidents pictured.

[MisterVeritis]

Obama had little respect for the constitution, but his Republican counterparts don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, they talk about a big game about the constitution and liberty, but when push comes to shove they embrace authoritarianism just as readily as any Democrat.
The feckless Establishment Republicans in the House failed to stop Obama. They are a big part of the problem.

[Ethereal]

I hope not, but you're probably right. At least with this President, he'll appoint a federalist-list Justice. With a federalist justice, we have a chance of maintaining our constitutional based republican system (little-'r'). With an open-borders, no-respect-for-stare-decisis Court, we didn't stand a chance.
I highly doubt that. A real federalist judge would declare the war on drugs unconstitutional, for starters. And they would look at the US government's mass domestic spying program as a Soviet-style violation of our rights. But there is almost zero chance a Trump appointee will do any of those things. In fact, they're just as likely to embrace those totalitarian usurpations of power as they are to attack them.

[DGUtley]

and on day two of his administration, you try to put the responsibility for his election on the democrats. pffffft

No, you misunderstood what I said. Well, kind of - but it also goes back to Bush. The point being that without a left-wing ideologue that refused to respect the Constitution, those of us that might have gagged at a Trump were forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. As Hillary moved left, and as she talked about the Justices she wanted (or the type of Justices she wanted) (or the policies she wanted - which the Court would have to reverse prior precedent - or judicially stretch the constitution to get -- or engage in result-oriented decision making that lacked intellectual honesty) it became easy. I 'get' you don't agree with it. I even assume that you think I'm lying or blowing smoke up your nose, but I can't make you believe that I think what I think. To many of us, the Constitution was in peril. Once you get to a certain point, you can't go back.

Read this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/?utm_term=.7bd5a057c9ac

Ponder this quote: “When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”

[MMC]

and on day two of his administration, you try to put the responsibility for his election on the democrats.

pffffft

Well plenty of Democrats voted for him.....that is how he won. Still that doesn't explain why you couldn't figure that out. Duh!

[DGUtley]

I highly doubt that. A real federalist judge would declare the war on drugs unconstitutional, for starters. And they would look at the US government's mass domestic spying program as a Soviet-style violation of our rights. But there is almost zero chance a Trump appointee will do any of those things. In fact, they're just as likely to embrace those totalitarian usurpations of power as they are to attack them.
I get it. I do. We know what we were going to get with Hillary. At least with Trump, the Court at least stands a chance to save the republic.


In fact, they're just as likely to embrace those totalitarian usurpations of power as they are to attack them. Note: Emphasis added

At least with Trump it's 50/50?

[Crepitus]

I hope not, but you're probably right. At least with this President, he'll appoint a federalist-list Justice. With a federalist justice, we have a chance of maintaining our constitutional based republican system (little-'r'). With an open-borders, no-respect-for-stare-decisis Court, we didn't stand a chance.

I seriously doubt it. What we will get is an extremely republican judge. I believe this because I don't think Trump will actually pick the judge, his advisors will.

[patrickt]

I don't know what President Trump will do. He's a lifelong
Democrat who has been on both sides, or more, of every issue as much as John Kerry was.

So, I'll wait and see. On the bright side, we all knew what a President
Clinton would do or a President
Sanders.

[DGUtley]

I seriously doubt it. What we will get is an extremely republican judge. I believe this because I don't think Trump will actually pick the judge, his advisors will.

if he picks from the list he put out, then you are wrong. If he does not, then you may be correct (depending on who he picks). I will write him if he doesn't pick a strong federalist.

[Bethere]

if he picks from the list he put out, then you are wrong. If he does not, then you may be correct (depending on who he picks). I will write him if he doesn't pick a strong federalist.

A sternly worded letter!

That'll fix his little red wagon!


Cavs v Spurs are on. Don't forget!

[Crepitus]

if he picks from the list he put out, then you are wrong. If he does not, then you may be correct (depending on who he picks). I will write him if he doesn't pick a strong federalist.

IMHO he will not.

[DGUtley]

A sternly worded letter!

That'll fix his little red wagon!

Cavs v Spurs are on. Don't forget!

Mrs. U and I are watching.