Yes, unprecedented would be a falsehood. And a deliberate one I'm sure he is aware of but ignoring for the sake of making a stronger political argument to the American people. It would be a lie to tell people it was unprecedented. And I do have a problem with that.
But at the same time I cannot be too angry with him because its so common in politics to make statements like that. But that's just my opinion.
My constitutional analysis is 100% party-free. Whoever gets it wrong, gets it wrong. I thought, and stated, that Bush declaring he considered McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, but signed it into law anyway, was arguably impeachable.
But fact is fact and Obama got the facts wrong.
I can respect that, but I think you're overreacting a bit because what he's doing isn't so uncommon. However yes, parts of it are factually incorrect and he's giving that to the American people to make a political argument.
How did I "overreact"? I made a pretty straightforward case.
I can respect that, but I think you're overreacting a bit because what he's doing isn't so uncommon. However yes, parts of it are factually incorrect and he's giving that to the American people to make a political argument.
You seem to have a habit of putting words in others mouths.Yeah, we all know that lying is good for the public.
Yeah, we all know that lying is good for the public.
I also sincerely doubt you have the credentials to challenge his understanding of the Constitution, at least from what I've seen of your posts.
I only hope that if the tables were turned and this was a law you gentlemen agreed with you would be equally passionate in your critique of the President's political rhetoric to the people. If that is the case then I can respect you for your lack of bias in your opinion even if our opinions aren't in total agreement, if this is just partisanship for you two then I can't say I respect a double standard in that case.
He could have said something that doesn't fly in the face of his supposed reputation as a Constitutional Law expert, and barring that, something that isn't falsified by a five-minute Google search.
It can be ruled as constitutional in a very limited court opinion like Roe.
Ah, the personal dig. Gotta love it.
I wouldn't care if it was GWB saying the same thing, I'd still think him an idiot for saying it. Would you defend him in the same manner?
It might be, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I was getting at.
Sure it does since the law can pass constitutional muster then its constitutional. It being wise is a different matter.
if you're going to have the opinion that someone's understanding of the Constitution is lacking,
If you think what he said shows ANY understanding of the constitution, well, that's your issue.
Thanks for not answering the question asking if you'd defend GWB if he said the same thing. I kinda figured as much.
You're being selective in your reasoning. You're focusing on a few quotes relating to his healthcare debate and ignore, 12 YEARS of teaching Constitutional law.
And sorry for missing that second point, yes I would defend GWB if he was in this situation.
He shouldn't count his chickens before they are hatched.
I could say the same thing for the literally hundreds of unconstitutional abortion bills that are filed across the country every year. The difference is that in many of those cases, the bills are CLEARLY unconstitional.If is interesting that we have politicians that will work on or pass a Bill that ends up being unconstitutional. Maybe our elected officlas should check before they act. It could save time and money.
I have had many professors over the years, at different points. Many of them taught the same subject for a lot longer than 12 years. To be honest, some of them where possibly the least intelligent human beings I have ever met. Teaching does not mean you understand, nor does it give a blank check of credibility. Let me read some of his lectures, or watch videos of them. Let me see transcripts so I know what classes he took and how he did, let me read papers he wrote both as a student and as a professor so I can see what he said about constitutional matters.
Thanks.
Ok then why haven't you done that?
And secondly, if reading his lectures or papers would let you know if he's well versed enough to have an opinion on the Constitutionality of something. Then why haven't you done that? If you say you don't have enough information to make an opinion, ie "I don't know because I haven't read his transcripts etc" then why are you A) assuming he's not smart enough and B) haven't read them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?