Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

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).


47 posted on 04/04/2012 3:26:22 PM PDT by Marathoner (2 goals this year: (1) S##tcan Obamacare; (2) S##tcan Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Marathoner

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.


48 posted on 04/04/2012 3:39:39 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson