Americans Are Worrying About the Constitution Again

Townhall.com ^ | April 2, 2012 | Michael Barone

[Candor7]

I agree with you completely.

Oh, Obama and his liberal fascist will be stopped.Whether by the ballot box or otherwise. It may cost the people more than they are NOW willing to give, but when their freedoms are so clearly lost, somehow the nation will rise, and it will not be pretty, it will be messy, but we will indeed rid ourselves of them.

Romney is an Obama enabler. He doesn’t seem to know that Obama is not a democrat, Obama is a nationalsit socialist, ie. fasist radical whose days in power are numbered. We need someone who has the hutzpa to put it to Obama, expose him, and take him to the cleaners. Romney is not that man.

Someone like Alan West could do it, or Sarah Palin. The GOP establishment has failed America yet again, in its time of direst need.

Good Read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[dead]

By definition, Amendments to the Constitution are constitutional. They are intentionally difficult to ratify and rarely make it through the process. They are not the problem, even if you disagree with them.

The problem is the judicial activism that, in so many cases, imagined up invisible text in the Constitution. When the document failed to provide the rights the government sought for itself, and it was impossible or arduous to try to change the document by the manner prescribed, they just pretended to see the text where it was missing.

[Ken H]

The constitution, applied as written, would not only piss off liberals, but would piss off a majority of the so called conservatives. Sacred cows would be gored.

+1

The only way back is to enforce original intent. The first step would be to repeal the 17th amendment.

+1

[Marathoner]

I remember my disappointment at President GHW Bush when he signed “campaign finance reform” saying he didn’t think it was Constitutional - but that was for the SCOTUS to decide.

As do I. Frankly, I was ready to support his impeachment for that, not for the reasons the insane leftists had, but because he knowingly signed legislation he thought was unconstitutional.

[allmendream]

Not a high crime or misdemeanor I am afraid.

Impeachment should not be for disagreements over policy or what is Constitutional or the proper rationale of a President when determining if he should sign legislation.

If he opined that he thought it was Constitutional then it wouldn't have been an impeachable offense? How about if he had just kept his mouth shut on the Constitutionality?

That being said I would hesitate to vote for any candidate who thought he should just go ahead and sign legislation that in HIS OPINION exceeds the powers given under the Constitution - because it is the role of the SCOTUS to make that determination.

WRONG - (but not an impeachable offense) - the Constitutionality of a law should be considered FIRST, LAST, and ALWAYS by EVERYONE involved.

[Marathoner]

I see your point. Yeah, impeachment is probably too strong in that case, but I was more upset with him over that than anything else he did during his time in office, as I considered that action a violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution(of course the current occupant violates it continually).

[allmendream]

I agree! You take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - you have no business signing on to legislation you think violates the Constitution.

Deference to the SCOTUS as the FINAL determiner of Constitutionality doesn’t mean that the issue shouldn’t be addressed by Congress when it drafts and votes on the legislation - and by the President when he decides to sign it or not.

I am all for deference to the SCOTUS - but that doesn’t mean being ‘agnostic’ as to the Constitutionality of legislation while it is being passed.

[Little Ray]

Don’t think I’m a libertarian; I went through that phase, before I got married, where Ayn Rand was queen and I would be selfish, etc. Then I got married and understood just how crazy Rand was...

Nowadays, just like my time allocation, my political goals are prioritized. I’d LIKE to inflict my values on others, but I’d settle for taking away the tools that allow other to inflict their values on me. That way I have still have an option to set an example or to vote with my feet and find a community that I can enjoy (which is where I am...).

[joe fonebone]

to say all libertarians are nut jobs is to say all repulicans are conservatives. You have capital L libertarians (nut jobs) and small l libertarians (strict constituionalist) I keep harping libertarian because it is the closest thing to strict constitutionalism out there, but the nut job wing needs to be ignored..... hate to break it to you, but you are a small l libertarian.... welcome back.