• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?

misterman said:
I did read through it. I don't see an actual answer. That was my point. If anyone thinks they did answer it, feel free to let me know.
Click to expand...

The answers are all there, but there are those who may be in denial so that it takes many iterations before it finally sinks in, but you'll eventually get it. Obama has 3 more years to teach us.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
A lot of conservatives make remarks about how Obama hates the constitution and violates it so I was hoping if some of you could point out to me what Obama has done that violates the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Any discussion regarding the meaning of the Constitution is a total waste of time, unless there is an agreement among the participants beforehand on what rules and principles are going to be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
Any discussion regarding what the Constitution means is a waste of time, unless there is an agreement beforehand on what rules and principles are going to be used to ascertain what the will of the lawmakers was at the time they made the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What do you think?
 
Whip Comes Down said:
I advocate the use of the well established common law rules of construction, as they existed at the time the Constitution was made.
Click to expand...

I know that these will probably end up in a 20-question test as in the Founding Fathers thread, but how do these common law rules of construction relate to the topic of this thread? The topic is, as follows in case we have all forgotten:

What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?
 
bicycleman said:
I know that these will probably end up in a 20-question test as in the Founding Fathers thread, but how do these common law rules of construction relate to the topic of this thread? The topic is, as follows in case we have all forgotten:

What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You can't ascertain that something violates the Constitution, until you correctly ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made it. You can't ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, unless you use the methodology of construction the lawmakers probably believed would be used.

Here is an interesting excerpt from Madison's Notes.

Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the terms,5 "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.
​
When Mr. Dickenson ascertained the meaning of the term "ex post facto", he consulted Blackstone's Commentaries for the answer. Why did he do that? Was he following some sort of well established generally accepted methodology of construction?

Should the words in the Constitution be generally understood according to the way Blackstone used them in his Commentaries?

Note: Dickenson had the best training in the common law of all the founders. He also fought for the British during the Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
You can't ascertain that something violates the Constitution, until you correctly ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made it.
Click to expand...

Huh?

And this is about Obama, not Congress.

Is anyone going to answer the question?
 
bicycleman said:
The answers are all there, but there are those who may be in denial so that it takes many iterations before it finally sinks in, but you'll eventually get it. Obama has 3 more years to teach us.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying anything. I don't see it. Point me to the post where the answers are please.
 
bicycleman said:
From what I can figure, he complained that he hated Conservatives, so I believe he is equating jersey walls and barbed wire fences with a police state that was created by Bush all to keep us safe from terrorists, but it was really how the government wrests more of our freedoms. You would have to get Voluntary to explain it. I am quite sure if my explanation is not what he meant, he will be on here, shortly to educate us all.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Nope. I think I recognize it. It's the ironically named "Free Speech Zone" that kept protestors far away from a national convention, I think it was the 2000 GOP convention.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
You can't ascertain that something violates the Constitution, until you correctly ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made it. You can't ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, unless you use the methodology of construction the lawmakers probably believed would be used.

Here is an interesting excerpt from Madison's Notes.

Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the terms,5 "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.
​
When Mr. Dickenson ascertained the meaning of the term "ex post facto", he consulted Blackstone's Commentaries for the answer. Why did he do that? Was he following some sort of well established generally accepted methodology of construction?

Should the words in the Constitution be generally understood according to the way Blackstone used them in his Commentaries?

Note: Dickenson had the best training in the common law of all the founders. He also fought for the British during the Revolution.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you want to take the Constitution down piece by piece because you don't like the way it is written so you desire to rewrite it so Obama and Congress won't be violating any part of the Constitution. The Constitution reads as it is written. I'm quite sure there was much dissent, but when the final tally was made, they all agreed on the finished product, which is the plan by which this great country is supposed to be governed. Now, if lawmakers don't like the way it is written, they need to get enough votes to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment process is what the founding fathers gave Americans to modify/amend the Constitution.

Now your definition as you conveniently quote from some unknown source, confuses the reader as to what Ex Post Facto really means. What it amounts to is charging an individual for a crime that was perfectly legal at the time he did it, but a law was passed after the fact, and now he is a criminal.

Then Bill of Attainder, this same poor shmuck above gets punished without even having a trial. Does what Obama and Congress did to AIG, targeting lawful bonuses come to mind? Thanks, WCD, for helping me point out another way Obama has violated or has tried to violate the Constitution. Here is the following part of the Constitution violated:

Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Click to expand...
 
misterman said:
Nope. I think I recognize it. It's the ironically named "Free Speech Zone" that kept protestors far away from a national convention, I think it was the 2000 GOP convention.
Click to expand...

If that's what it is, it didn't keep anti-Republican protestors away from the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minnesota this past summer. That would be where a bunch of thugs got together to destroy public property and harass old people who were attending the Republican convention. You should remember those thugs? If it hadn't been for the police keeping order, there would have been bloodshed and possibly death. So much for the "peaceful" liberal demonstrators. You can contrast them with the truly peaceful Tea Party protestors.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
I'm not denying anything. I don't see it. Point me to the post where the answers are please.
Click to expand...

Nope. You can go back and re-read them. In fact, there's one, 2 posts above. Just remember to weed out the superfluous posts about conspiracy theories as you search through all 138 posts.
 
Last edited:
obama-burns-constitution.jpg



LOOK WHAT HE'S DOIN TO MAH CONSTITUTION!
 
Whip Comes Down said:
The issue is what rules should be followed to interpret it, bro.
Click to expand...

The topic is what Obama has done to violate the Constitution. I explained to you how that has occurred. You need to start another thread on whatever it is you are talking about. I do not care what went on in the minds of the early founders, only that the finished product is the US Constitution, the plan of our government, and it is this Constitution that Obama routinely violates, as well as the other 2 stooges, Reid and Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
The topic is what Obama has done to violate the Constitution. I explained to you how that has occurred.
Click to expand...

Could you tell me where? Which post on this thread?
 
bicycleman said:
My troll detector has gone off the scale.
Click to expand...

I am serious. Simply point to the message. I looked through the thread, and I don't see it. Simply correct me please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom