Some Body Needs To Explain To "Harvard Law Professor" President Obama How The Law Works.

The Court is not responsive to the public, it is supposed to be responsive to the Constitution. The Congress is supposed to reflect the will of the people, that is, the House of Representatives.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...will-be-upheld

The Supreme Court is a third, and equal branch, of the government.

I think he wants to piss them off. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Obama was never actually a professor. He was a "senior lecturer" at The University of Chicago Law School. Obama likes to enhance his resume. He knows we can't check most of it.

From Powerlineblog.com:

For the record, Obama is a “Senior Lecturer (on leave of absence)” at the University of Chicago Law School. Apparently, he has taught Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process, Current Issues in Racism & the Law, and Voting Rights & the Democratic Process.

It's kind of like the difference between a certificate of live birth and a birth certificate; they're not the same thing. Obama is sort casual with the truth.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/017012.php

The Court is not responsive to the public, it is supposed to be responsive to the Constitution. The Congress is supposed to reflect the will of the people, that is, the House of Representatives. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In theory you are correct. In reality they have to pay attention to the people since they have no other enforcement capability and if they get ignored they become irrelevant.

The Court is not responsive to the public, it is supposed to be responsive to the Constitution. The Congress is supposed to reflect the will of the people, that is, the House of Representatives. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

All three branches of government are equally bound by the Constitution. Congress represents their constituants, but they still have to abide by their oath of office and not write law that is outside of the Constitution.

The President is required to not sign legislation that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is required to overturn laws that are unconstitutional.

Ultimately, the people have a right to overthrow the government if it operates outside the Constitution.


From the Declaration of Independence:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Joe, with all due respect, the Declaration is not Law.

The people do have the right to overthrow members of the Government through elections. But we are a Republic, we elect representatives to run the Government. The Constitution provides the remedies for those that break the rules when the electorate does not respond, ie, impeachment.

We do not have the right to overthrow the Government. I think that fits the definition of Sedition. If you try to actually attempt to overthrow the Government, you will probably end up in a prison, or a grave.

Joe, with all due respect, the Declaration is not Law.

The people do have the right to overthrow members of the Government through elections. But we are a Republic, we elect representatives to run the Government. The Constitution provides the remedies for those that break the rules when the electorate does not respond, ie, impeachment.

We do not have the right to overthrow the Government. I think that fits the definition of Sedition. If you try to actually attempt to overthrow the Government, you will probably end up in a prison, or a grave. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I understand that The Declaration of Indepence is not law. Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Indepence that we have the right to overthrow the government under certain conditions. My understanding is that at some point, if the federal government completely abandons the Constitution, at least by Jefferson's reckoning the people have a right to overthow it.

If the government abandons the Constitution, it no longer has legitimate authority to rule the people. This is why Congressmen, the President and the judges on the Supreme Court have to swear to uphold the Constitution. The understanding is that they are only being given power on the condition that they agree to abide by the Constitution . If they operate outside the Constitution, they have violated the contract.

I certainly don't advocate violence. Sedition is by definition the advocation of overthrowing a government by violence.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Ghandi regained India's freedom from Great Britain non-violently. Martin Luther King used Ghandi's non-violent revolution as a model for his successful campain to gain freedom. Eventually the American people may have to follow his lead to reclaim our freedom.

Ok, for arguments sake, what happens when this prick with big ears, ignores a supreme court ruling obaminable care unconstitutional, and decides, to make it an executive order? And any of you that think he won't do it are sadly mistaken...!!!! This sob, thinks he is above the law...

Seedman, I have been searching the internet trying to find an answer to that very question. It seems not getting re-elected, or impeachment, is the only recourse.

Since the majority in the Senate would suck the President's dick if he told them too, the second option is a moot point. That leaves the first.

Elections matter.

Ok, for arguments sake, what happens when this prick with big ears, ignores a supreme court ruling obaminable care unconstitutional, and decides, to make it an executive order? And any of you that think he won't do it are sadly mistaken...!!!! This sob, thinks he is above the law... Originally Posted by seedman55

Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag (basically their equivalent of our capital building) as an excuse to seize power and rule by decree.

I wouldn't put it past Obama to try something similar if he thought he could get away with it. If Obama tries suspending elections and implementing martial law I think the trigger will probably be massive rioting by the Acorn/Occupy/New Black Panther/SEIU/inner city crowd.

In light of what you guys are talking about have you been watching the whole issue with Benton Harbor? The Michigan Messenger see also The Silencing of Benton Harbor
and..The secret war on Democracy

In light of what you guys are talking about have you been watching the whole issue with Benton Harbor? The Michigan Messenger see also The Silencing of Benton Harbor
and..The secret war on Democracy Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Thank God the founding fathers were wise enough to not create a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, at least for a while longer. I am concerned about the not so secret war on our constitution and our republic.

Rachel Maddow is actually Ron Reagan Jr; you may have noticed you never see them togother

Wow, Joe, the problem really is which one is a man dressing as a woman, and which is a woman dressing as a man.

The confusion arises when you realize that Ron Jr is twice the woman Rachel is, and Rachel is twice the man Ron Jr is.

And yes, thank God we are indeed a Republic.

Wow, Joe, the problem really is which one is a man dressing as a woman, and which is a woman dressing as a man.

The confusion arises when you realize that Ron Jr is twice the woman Rachel is, and Rachel is twice the man Ron Jr is.

And yes, thank God we are indeed a Republic. Originally Posted by Jackie S

LOL!!!

President Reagan must have been embarrased to have that tutu wearing wimp for a son. I've always called him Non Reagan.

It's so weird that Reagan's adopted son Michael Reagan has followed in his father's footsteps politically and both of his biological children are commie pinkos. I think Michael Reagan is sort of like a rescue dog, they are always the most loyal and loving.

LOL!!!

President Reagan must have been embarrased to have that tutu wearing wimp for a son. I've always called him Non Reagan.

It's so weird that Reagan's adopted son Michael Reagan has followed in his father's footsteps politically and both of his biological children are commie pinkos. I think Michael Reagan is sort of like a rescue dog, they are always the most loyal and loving. Originally Posted by joe bloe

you mean this rescue dog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyFWS...&feature=email

Ok, for arguments sake, what happens when this prick with big ears, ignores a supreme court ruling obaminable care unconstitutional, and decides, to make it an executive order? And any of you that think he won't do it are sadly mistaken...!!!! This sob, thinks he is above the law... Originally Posted by seedman55

Won't happen. Not even Obama is that nuts. It would guarantee him losing the election along with most of the democrats in congress that did not actively oppose what he did. I agree that he would do it if he thought he could get away with it but, with the public being opposed to it, he knows he would lose plus any effort to enforce the order would end up in court. The same courts that he ignored and would be opposing it the whole way to retain their power.