The Oath of Congress -- Thanks for the Lecture

[AllanHampton]

FYI I too swore an oath the support and defend the Constitution but I don't make any laws. Supporting the Constitution isn't just for politicians...

You are correct, but maybe the difference is method empowered to comply. All elected Officials and all Judges Oath use the word support. The Oath has different wording for other Oath takers.

 

[madman]

I'd like to hear about how "Raygun" violated the Constituton, or even "Bush"..

But what I find fascinating is that you're greeted with the violations of Obama, and you can only frame it in terms of partisan hackery, and not condemn the enormity of what Obama has done to the country and constitution.

should i really even bother to tell you about the violations? Probably shouldn't since you'll just deny it.
Google around and find out for yourself, and dont be so naive.

 

[Trip]

should i really even bother to tell you about the violations? Probably shouldn't since you'll just deny it.
Google around and find out for yourself, and dont be so naive.

No really, I want to hear what specific violations of the Constitution, Reagan and Bush are guilty of, because you said that they "trampled all over the constitution", and I know this didn't happen. I'm sure that you can clarify this, since you brought it up like like a hyperpartisan hack, rather than Address Obama's own serial violations.

But in the meantime you have this Oval Occupant who has from his very first days, engaged in unconstitutional abuse of power, threatening private citizens, ignoring law, nullifying law, ignored courts, abuse of position to attack the Court in the State of the Union, denied citizens the bill of rights, refused to implement laws, blackmailed states in failing to implement laws, abused Government Organizations to bypass congress and write his own laws. and so much more.

Beyond that, he has deliberately undermined and attacked this country,he has deliberately worsened the economy and deceased jobs, and he has weakened this country before her enemies, and should be tried and found guilty of treason.

 

[AllanHampton]

Beyond that, he has deliberately undermined and attacked this country,he has deliberately worsened the economy and deceased jobs, and he has weakened this country before her enemies, and should be tried and found guilty of treason.

Would attacking, and trying to sink, the USS Liberty (murdering 34 U.S. Sailors) in 1967 make the attacking country (Israel) an enemy?

What other enemies are you writing about?

 

[madman]

No really, I want to hear what specific violations of the Constitution,

Conyers v. Reagan
National Day of Prayer instutited by Reagan (unconstitional as of 2010)
Reagan supported an assault weapons ban


Bush and his lack of Congressional Declaration of War
Bush - Patriot act
Bush - education policy (aka No child left behind)
Bush - Wire taps

There's lots more, but you can educate yourself.


Ok, now deny away!

 

[Trip]

Conyers v. Reagan

You mean the conflict where are troops were there for less than the 60 days allowed in the War Powers Act, and the Court ruled that Conyers had another remedy through Congress, and that it was a moot point because there were no longer troops in Grenada?

National Day of Prayer instutited by Reagan (unconstitional as of 2010)

Well it seems you're ill-informed about the National Day of Prayer.

The First Amendment ensures "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion", and only prohibits Congress from making any law to institutionalize religion. That was not done by the Day of Prayer. And it was not found to be unconstitutional in 2010. The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the constitutionality of the Day of Pray and it was dismissed in April 2011

Reagan supported an assault weapons ban

Yes, I don't believe this was at all positive, and not supported by the clear indication of the Second Amendment.

Bush and his lack of Congressional Declaration of War

War in the Gulf (Desert Storm) - H.R.J. Res. 77, January 12, 1991, Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution ,

Afghanistan War - S.J. Res. 23, September 14, 2001

Iraq War - H.J. Res 114, March 3, 2003, Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Bush - Patriot act

The Patriot Act only allowed for a process of gaining search warrants, and such, including judicial review, from information government already had at its disposal. The fact is that government has had access to a whole array of electronic communications since the development of SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) in the 60's, which many will recognize by the popular name "ECHELON". There is really no constitutional protection done away with by the Patriot Act, as all the information is already recognized to be in the public domain, and certainly not as heinous as the claim of government ownership of our bodies and the nullification of the lionshare of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

What constitutional protections that do apply under the Patriot Act is judicial review of the evidence in order to obtain a search warrant, and review of its use overall in order to ascertain it is not being abused. "Personal papers and effects" involve things that are private and not willfully released into the public domain.

Bush - education policy (aka No child left behind)

How exactly is that unconstitutional? It's unconstitutonal to prohibit students being promoted from grade to grade when they don't have even the most basic skills to be promoted?

Bush - Wire taps

See "Bush - Patriot Act"

There's lots more, but you can educate yourself

More? I don't see any, for there to be "more".

 

[madman]

You mean the conflict where are troops were there for less than the 60 days allowed in the War Powers Act, and the Court ruled that Conyers had another remedy through Congress, and that it was a moot point because there were no longer troops in Grenada?



Well it seems you're ill-informed about the National Day of Prayer.

The First Amendment ensures "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion", and only prohibits Congress from making any law to institutionalize religion. That was not done by the Day of Prayer. And it was not found to be unconstitutional in 2010. The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the constitutionality of the Day of Pray and it was dismissed in April 2011




Yes, I don't believe this was at all positive, and not supported by the clear indication of the Second Amendment.





War in the Gulf (Desert Storm) - H.R.J. Res. 77, January 12, 1991, Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution ,

Afghanistan War - S.J. Res. 23, September 14, 2001

Iraq War - H.J. Res 114, March 3, 2003, Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002


The Patriot Act only allowed for a process of gaining search warrants, and such, including judicial review, from information government already had at its disposal. The fact is that government has had access to a whole array of electronic communications since the development of SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) in the 60's, which many will recognize by the popular name "ECHELON". There is really no constitutional protection done away with by the Patriot Act, as all the information is already recognized to be in the public domain, and certainly not as heinous as the claim of government ownership of our bodies and the nullification of the lionshare of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

What constitutional protections that do apply under the Patriot Act is judicial review of the evidence in order to obtain a search warrant, and review of its use overall in order to ascertain it is not being abused. "Personal papers and effects" involve things that are private and not willfully released into the public domain.



How exactly is that unconstitutional? It's unconstitutonal to prohibit students being promoted from grade to grade when they don't have even the most basic skills to be promoted?




See "Bush - Patriot Act"




More? I don't see any, for there to be "more".

denial is evident.

The Constitution is like the bible, it's open for interpretation to fit ones agenda.

 

[Trip]

denial is evident.

The Constitution is like the bible, it's open for interpretation to fit ones agenda.

When facts deny you, it is not my own agenda.

And no, the Constitution is not like the Bible. It is written clearly, concisely, and deliberately and leaves no vagueness, much less "emanations and penumbras", that might be legitimately interpreted in whatever fashion. IN fact under Constitutional Law, whenever there is an uncertainty, it is recognized under the principle of Contemporaneous Construction, that the Federalist can be consulted to clarify any uncertainty.

What you argue in favor of is the deliberate corruption of the Constitution itself, and this nation overall, with an unrelenting political agenda, one deliberately protected against, and prohibited.

Your assertions are nothing but partisan hackery at its 'finest', that actually believes its unsupported position holds any merit. Your stance was shown quite clearly by your focusing on such things as "Day of Prayer", but not once making any reference to that Constitution which you allege was violated in any one of your claims.

 

[madman]

When facts deny you, it is not my own agenda.

And no, the Constitution is not like the Bible. It is written clearly, concisely, and deliberately and leaves no vagueness, much less "emanations and penumbras", that might be legitimately interpreted in whatever fashion. IN fact under Constitutional Law, whenever there is an uncertainty, it is recognized under the principle of Contemporaneous Construction, that the Federalist can be consulted to clarify any uncertainty.

What you argue in favor of is the deliberate corruption of the Constitution itself, and this nation overall, with an unrelenting political agenda, one deliberately protected against, and prohibited.

Your assertions are nothing but partisan hackery at its 'finest', that actually believes its unsupported position holds any merit. Your stance was shown quite clearly by your focusing on such things as "Day of Prayer", but not once making any reference to that Constitution which you allege was violated in any one of your claims.

I totally disagree, the Constitution is fully open to interpretation. Why do you think there's so much "OMG! the president is trashing the constitution" talk?

 

[Trip]

I totally disagree, the Constitution is fully open to interpretation. Why do you think there's so much "OMG! the president is trashing the constitution" talk?

Because the Oval Occupant is indeed trashing the Constitution, and his very presence and every act in that Oval Office have been routinely gross violations of the Constitution, and abuses of power, but they have been violations that the Democratic Party and supports with its deliberate disdain for the Constitution enabling its unconstitutional and tyrannous agenda.

 

[madman]

Because the Oval Occupant is indeed trashing the Constitution, and his very presence and every act in that Oval Office have been routinely gross violations of the Constitution, and abuses of power, but they have been violations that the Democratic Party and supports with its deliberate disdain for the Constitution enabling its unconstitutional and tyrannous agenda.

and that is simply your opinion.

 

[Trip]

and that is simply your opinion.

Nope. It is fact.

It involves a laundry list from his early from rewriting bankruptcy law on the fly, to deny preferred creditors their lawfully guaranteed return of their investment, to abuse of power in threatening those creditors, and other private persons, on through the embargo on drilling in the Gulf despite two court orders to desist, on through his criminal actions and blackmail regarding immigration and the borders, and much in between.

 

[madman]

Nope. It is fact.

It involves a laundry list from his early from rewriting bankruptcy law on the fly, to deny preferred creditors their lawfully guaranteed return of their investment, to abuse of power in threatening those creditors, and other private persons, on through the embargo on drilling in the Gulf despite two court orders to desist, on through his criminal actions and blackmail regarding immigration and the borders, and much in between.

again, it's simply an opinion that you are entitled to.

 

[AllanHampton]

Nope. It is fact.

It involves a laundry list from his early from rewriting bankruptcy law on the fly, to deny preferred creditors their lawfully guaranteed return of their investment, to abuse of power in threatening those creditors, and other private persons, on through the embargo on drilling in the Gulf despite two court orders to desist, on through his criminal actions and blackmail regarding immigration and the borders, and much in between.

The President constitutionally cannot legislate; Article I, Section 1, only Congress has the power to legislate. Who else but an enemy would blatantly lie about the President? An attempt to direct attention away from the true criminal, Congress.

 

[Trip]

The President constitutionally cannot legislate; Article I, Section 1, only Congress has the power to legislate. Who else but an enemy would blatantly lie about the President? An attempt to direct attention away from the true criminal, Congress.

Just ... wow...

My whole point was that the President cannot legislate, and cannot overrule bankruptcy law.

Lie about the President? I've never called him President in all the past term of occupancy, and I don't need to lie when the things are a laundry list and right before your very eyes.

If you think the problem is solely the Congress, then how the hell are you so blind to keeping your eye on one man who is a media hound, and continually doing things unconstitutional and directly damaging to the economy escaping your view?

 

[AllanHampton]

Just ... wow...

My whole point was that the President cannot legislate, and cannot overrule bankruptcy law.

Lie about the President? I've never called him President in all the past term of occupancy, and I don't need to lie when the things are a laundry list and right before your very eyes.

If you think the problem is solely the Congress, then how the hell are you so blind to keeping your eye on one man who is a media hound, and continually doing things unconstitutional and directly damaging to the economy escaping your view?

Again - Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Which mean Congress must enact a law authorizing an action of government.

AND

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"

Which means the President can't wipe his butt on government toilet paper until Congress enacts a law to buy the toilet paper, and Representatives must start a Bill to appropriate the money.

Article I, Section 2, clause 5, "The House of Representatives ...; ...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Which means the President is subject to being impeached for doing something unauthorized by law from Congress.

Article I, Section 2, clause 1, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

Which means Representatives are subject to not being chosen, by the people, for another two year term at the next election cycle if Representatives do not hold the President accountable to the laws Congress enacts.

AND

The people's vote does not elect a President and never has, since 1804 the Electoral College elects the President; Amendment 12.

So, bad mouthing the President is for the purpose of misleading or distracting voters from their real "constitutional" power to correct government (chosen Representatives every two years). voters can't do anything at all to or about a President or about the occupant of the President's Office.