Mr. Obama could win a second term. Hence, Obamacare - along with its contraceptive mandate - might not be repealed and may even expand. If so, he will have succeeded in giving birth to his Frankenstein monster: a post-constitutional, post-American soft tyranny

Couldn't say it better

This absurdity is getting boring.

Mr. Obama ignored the War Powers Act

As has every president after Truman.

Mr. Obama signed (NDAA) into law, allowing military courts to indefinitely detain American citizens

It was conceived in the Teabagger congress.

Mr. Obama has created countless policy czars possessing Cabinet-like powers without the approval or consent of the Senate.

The GOP regularly obstructs his cabinet picks. Something that is unprecedented and counter to the intent of the founders.

Mr. Obama appointed Mr. Cordray as a recess appointment even though Congress was not in recess. A clear and dangerous violation of the Constitution.

No, the rules for what constitutes a recess had been changed recently. Again, look at above point.

Mr. Obama had declared war not just on the Catholic Church, but on the First Amendment. Ordering almost all religious organizations to provide health insurance coverage that includes free birth control and sterilization procedures

This is an absurd claim.

The desperation of the right-wing is telling with the easily debunked drivel they keep putting out these days.

#2 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY No, the rules for what constitutes a recess had been changed recently. Again, look at above point.

Shocked that Eric Holder's DOJ would declare that there is no problem.

#2 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY It was conceived in the Teabagger congress

Could you point out in the constitution where the President is not responsible for all the bills he signs?

"Mr. Obama ignored the War Powers Act"

#2 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY As has every president after Truman.

And the case law for the other guys did it so it's OK is?

"OBAMA: Constitution, I don't need no stinkin Constitution"

I was with you on the first two examples and then you flew off the rails like Randy Rhoads.

And the case law for the other guys did it so it's OK is?

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-15 12:58 PM

Are you saying it's okay when other presidents do it but when the black president does it it's not ok?

#7 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

You are such a hater; it's always about color with you.

I'm surprised you riightie panic-button pushers actually take the risk of going outside - that is, if you leave your parents' basements to go outside at all, ever - what with all those pieces of sky falling down from on high.

ROTFLMAO!

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The combination of Vodka, Cheetos and the internet don't combine well for you.

An opinion piece. Short of facts and long on hyperbole.

I don't necessarily disagree with the problems pointed out but intellectually honest analysis does not lead to "I don't need no Constitution."

Remember what they say about opinions. Like assholes everybody has one.

Like assholes everybody has one.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2012-02-15 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Might be interested in hanging out with Doc Stupid and his gerbil collection.

An opinion piece. Short of facts and long on hyperbole #11 | Posted by et_al

Did Obama ignored the War Powers Act? Yes
Did Obama sign the NDAA)? Yes
Did Obama create czars without congressional approval? Yes
Did Obama make a recess appointment while Congress was in session? Yes
Did Obama attack the First Amendment? Yes

So much for your lack of facts

Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution

Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes - and he's right - that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."

1. He was a constitutional law professor.
2. He's a Democrat.
3. He's black.

Therefore . . .
His understanding of the constitution is, by definition, more nuanced and comprehensive than that of anyone else living.

#10 | Posted by paneocon

The combination of Invincible Ignorance, Unfounded Fear, Emotional Immaturity, a lack of Historical Understanding, and the total absence of anything approaching Realistic Perspective don't combine well for you, chumpy.

"His understanding of the constitution is, by definition, more nuanced and comprehensive than that of anyone else living."

Yours, for sure.

Every President has expanded Federal power with each term. Each promises change, and then each offers no positive change; only power grabs.

The American people sit quietly because they: A)Don't understand the President is not a King; B) Don't see it happening; C) Don't care until it is too late.

Remember: precedents last longer than Presidents. Just because you trust one with a power doesn't mean you will trust all with that power. Always better to error on the side of NOT GIVING THEM THE POWER.

=The combination of Invincible Ignorance, Unfounded Fear, Emotional Immaturity, a lack of Historical Understanding, and the total absence of anything approaching Realistic Perspective don't combine well for you, chumpy.

No, but the Santorum Reversible Thongs are selling like hotcakes!

Seeing all the anger tht liberals have toward Santorum, and all the anger that conservatives have toward Obama, it should be clear that the true unity candidate is Mitt.

No citation necessary.

"His understanding of the constitution is, by definition, more nuanced and comprehensive than that of anyone else living."

Yours, for sure.

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Obviously. Apparently, the War Powers Act only applies to white presidents, just to cite one example. Didn't know that.

#13 | Posted by paneocon

It still does'nt add up to "I don't need no stinkin[sic] Constitution."

Go back and read what I said about intellectually honest analysis and what I agree with.

As pointed out by Kanrei, all presidents seek to increase the power of their office.

War Powers Act has been ignored by a number of presidents without corrective action by Congress.

NDAA is suck ass congressional legislation signed by a president expanding his power.

"Czars" have been appointed by presidents for a long time without corrective action by Congress.

There is a disagreement about when "Congress is in session." See again, expansion of power and Congressional action.

The synopsis you posted above says "declared war" not attacked. I don't see such declaration, see War Powers above. Again there is disagreement in how to describe the actions referred to regarding church and first amendment. That disagreement does not constitute a declaration war nor does it constitute an attack.

Again, go back and read what I said about opinions, hyperbole, agreement, intellectual honesty and assholes.

Mr. Obama signed (NDAA) into law, allowing military courts to indefinitely detain American citizens

It was conceived in the Teabagger congress.

#2 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-02-15 12:42 PM

Apparently, the War Powers Act only applies to white presidents, just to cite one example. Didn't know that.
#20 | Posted by rightisright

Often comes down to the color bar for you, doesn't it, chump?

Like so much you think you "know," that's bullshit.

That you're unaware of it being bullshit speaks volumes about the all-consuming depth and breadth of the sea of ignorance in which you're drowning.

If Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be president. Quit being so stupid to pretend otherwise. He would just be another whitey wannabee who got steamrolled by HRC back in 2008.

No, you voted for him because he's black, along with the majority of the Dem voters in the primary. And now that any criticism of this bozo is racially motivated, I'll play along too. For example, if beating up on Obama over his monstrous deficits is racist, then it follows that the only reason the deficits are as big as they are, is because he's black. Which is kinda weird. So answer a simple question: if a white republican bombed Libya without asking Congress for more time and money, as the WPA mandates, would that bother you, or not? How about if he spent over a trillion dollars a year, every year, more than his government brought it?

I already know the answer. You liberal pussies would be all kinds of outraged, and you wouldn't be able to wait for your next class to start, so you can fill the kiddies' heads with all kinds of drivel. Speaking of which, I'm always amazed at how much time you have to blog, then, I remember, and I'm not anymore.

What's hysterical is that you're too stupid to see how stupid you are. You liberals used to pretend to care about stuff like that, but the "color bar" has been your obsession since February, 2008. Even Hillary figured that out, too late. It's funny.

You're a stupid pussy, Doc. If anyone takes you seriously at all, it's because he's stupid too.

#21 | Posted by et_al Go back and read what I said about intellectually honest analysis and what I agree with.

I think I made my case so we differ ion this.

#21 | Posted by et_al War Powers Act

I would be the first to suggest the War Powers Act needs a rewrite to fit todays enviroment but for the time being it is the law and our Presidents need to follow the law.

#21 | Posted by et_al opinions, hyperbole, agreement, intellectual honesty and assholes.

If you have issues with opinions, hyperbole, intellectual honesty and assholes you should go some where other than the DR.

He is an ideological revolutionary who seeks to sweep away traditional America.

No fan of Obama, and he's certainly hypocritically embraced big brother and executive power (which all of his pom-pom wavers have also embraced), but it's not a drastic change of course. If anything, he's just continuing us down the road we've been on since at least 9/11, if not before.

#14 | Posted by rightisright 1. He was a constitutional law professor

Really? Is that Correct Doc? What is it about the study of constitutional law that attracts so many Marxists?

If anything, he's just continuing us down the road we've been on since at least 9/11, if not before. #27 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Please Obama has turbo charged the damage Bush did. Domestic drones, indefinite detention, not to mention the Bush stuff like rendition, Patriot Act that has been retained.

What is it about the study of constitutional law that attracts so many Marxists?

#28 | Posted by paneocon

Because it's easy work. The soft sciences--political science, sociology, history, philosophy, English, literature--attract all kinds of people who simply can't cut it in the math- and science-heavy disciplines. Simple as that.

#26 | Posted by paneocon

Problems with the War Powers Act should have been addressed many years ago. Apparently, congress and presidents are happy as it is. Same with "Czar" and recess appointments.

You made no case. You merely parroted the posted article.

So, let me get this straight. I take issue with an opinion piece, written in incendiary language, therefore I should go somewhere other than the DR.

I'll give your suggestion the same amount of consideration that I paid for admission to the site.

#31 | Posted by et_al

I think that my statement is pretty clear "If you have issues with opinions, hyperbole, intellectual honesty and assholes you should go somewhere other than the DR." Almost all threads on all subjects exhibit these traits.

"Because it's easy work. The soft sciences--political science, sociology, history, philosophy, English, literature--attract all kinds of people who simply can't cut it in the math- and science-heavy disciplines. Simple as that."

God, you're an idiot. Does it ever occur to you that some people who are very bright and could do whatever kind of study and work they want just aren't interested in the "math- and science-heavy disciplines" to which you refer? And btw, I know plenty of mathematicians and scientists who couldn't handle the language-heavy disciplines you disdain. I also know a number of "soft science" experts who could do some pretty high-end math.

That said, I must give you credit for the getting the hanging hyphen right.

"Language-heavy"? Like English? I've yet to understand why we have English majors.

But point taken. I was actually answering the question posed with respect to ConLaw and Marxism. Marxists believe in share and share alike, we should all be paid the same, but in academia they don't bring nearly as much to the table as a guy teaching theoretical physics or applied statistics. He still wants the paycheck, though. The Constitution is, what?, three pages long? And all the rest if fluffage. The best kind of work if you're an idealogue, who still likes to live large.

The Constitution is, what?, three pages long? And all the rest if fluffage.

There are about 200 years worth of supreme court cases expanding upon/interpreting the Constitution that are taught throughout a ConLaw class. Like it or not, you can't really grasp Constitutional Law just from reading the Constitution, and the doctrines that have appeared after the fact are far more than simple "fluffage."

It should be required continuing education for every retard in Congress, along with the President. Couldn't hurt the majority of Drudge Retorters either.

#32 | Posted by paneocon

I think that my retort is pretty clear; "I'll give your suggestion the same amount of consideration that I paid for admission to the site."

#35 | Posted by JOE

"There are about 200 years worth of supreme court cases expanding upon/interpreting the Constitution that are taught throughout a ConLaw class. Like it or not, you can't really grasp Constitutional Law just from reading the Constitution, and the doctrines that have appeared after the fact are far more than simple "fluffage."

It should be required continuing education for every retard in Congress, along with the President. Couldn't hurt the majority of Drudge Retorters either."

Journalists and pundits need to be added to the list of those who would benefit from such education, continuing or otherwise.

Please Obama has turbo charged the damage Bush did. Domestic drones, indefinite detention, not to mention the Bush stuff like rendition, Patriot Act that has been retained.

#29 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-15 03:15 PM

It's not a defense of him, it's just perspective. The idea that he is an ideological revolutionary who seeks to sweep away traditional America, when really he's just more of the same, is pure hysterical coozery.

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-15 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

So he is so inept that he couldn't be different in either a better OR worse sense?

Wow.

The combination of Invincible Ignorance, Unfounded Fear, Emotional Immaturity, a lack of Historical Understanding, and the total absence of anything approaching Realistic Perspective don't combine well for you, chumpy.

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-15 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

WHAT DID FUCKFACE SAY?

..............OH, YEAH

-----------

Seriously, is your inability to actually address the topic of the thread due to laziness, stupidity, or both?

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-01-09 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

So he is so inept that he couldn't be different in either a better OR worse sense?

Wow.

#39 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-16 10:24 AM

Point was, he's not the "radical" hysterical coozes like Paneocon are making him out to be. He's largely, at least on the issues presented above, more of the same while taking us a bit farther down the path of big brother and less civil liberties, all in the name of 'security.' The idea that he's 'sweeping away traditional America' at a significantly greater degree than any of his most recent predecessors is bull shit.

#41 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-16 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know. My point is, he is not the "radical" he claimed to be either.

on late nite radio a week or so I heard a guy make a case that if you are a strict constitutionalist that every president since lincoln could be impeached for some violation of the document...it was interesting but IM not so sure anyone is THAT strict..or should be

oh please...

ripping out the first amendment is what I call a radical...

gas now at four bucks in part of the east...keep that going and it wont matter..

#41 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE Point was, he's not the "radical" hysterical coozes like Paneocon are making him out to be.

Only history will tell whether you or I am right but I think that there is a lot of evidence to make my point. By the way I'm not a girl.

RightIsRight seems to be very hung up on race.

No surprise.

The Constitution was created by our founders to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government.

Somehow, our representatives have gotten the idea that rights infer the obligation for the government to provide the underlying right...ie. a right to healthcare requires the government to provide it.

Well, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, so government forces a one size fits all, that doesn't fit anyone.

Notice the flap over Ginsberg's stand that we don't provide enough rights?

Nothing is too expensive for he who doesn't have to pay for it.

http://
www.ratifyconstitution.com

Mr. Obama ignored the War Powers Act

As has every president after Truman.

#2 | POSTED BY DARTHCHENEY

Well that can't be true. The war powers act wasn't enacted until 1973. It would be rather hard for Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson to ignore an act that hadn't been passed yet.