Rush Limbaugh has said many times that President Barack Hussein Obama views the US Constitution as an impediment, as an obstacle to be circumvented, to be worked around. Limbaugh said, “…The Constitution is Obama’s obstacle.” The latest Obama “accommodation” drove home the point that Obama really does see the US Constitution as an obstacle to tyrannical rule that he, and many liberals, want to impose.
For some insight into his current thinking, Obama, while in the Illinois senate, in a 2001 interview, said that the Chief Justice Earl Warren court failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the US Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. 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.”
That thinking is exemplified by his “We can’t wait” campaign to circumvent the US Constitution, to bypass Congress, and do whatever he pleases to extend “positive” rights when he thinks they are required. If Congress and the US Constitution gets in his way or don’t give him his way, he ignores them. He says “We can’t wait” and does what he wants.
Article II, section 1, of the US Constitution clearly states about the president: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That is the oath that Obama voluntarily took. Further, Article I, section 1, states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So when he says “We can’t wait,” is he hiding behind the phrase “to the best of my Ability?” Does his ability include in what he believes? And how does he get around the phrase “faithfully execute the Office?” Does he think that he is faithfully executing his duties when he invokes his “We can’t wait” stratagem?
Here are some examples of his “We can’t wait” strategy and executive fiat:
- In October, 2011, Obama, seeking to circumvent congressional opposition and to jump-start the economy, pushed a series of “executive branch steps,” beginning with “new rules” to make it easier for homeowners with little or no equity to refinance their federally funded mortgages, through Fannie May and Freddie Mac, which posted larger losses than expected, sought $6 billion in additional aid.
- In July, 2011, Obama told the National Council of La Raza that the idea of “doing things” on his own was “very tempting” when it came to bypassing Congress on immigration.
- In September, 2011 Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus he’d like to work his way “around Congress.”
- In July, 2011, during the debt limit debate, Obama asked lawyers if there was a way to interpret the 14th Amendment so as to get around Congress and establish a “long-term extension of the federal borrowing limit” on his own.
- Before Obama was president he said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry by imposing a cap and trade system that would be so harsh that “electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket.” Unable to get that bill through Congress, Obama bypassed them and used Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to accomplish his goals. According to an analysis released in October, 2011, by the Institute for Energy Research, the EPA is “leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations.”
- Blatant subversion: Lybia war – In Article I, section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the US Constitution, there is the phrase “To declare War…” But Obama said the US actions in Lybia didn’t amount to war, so he didn’t need the approval of Congress. And he ignored the War Powers Act.
His latest decree, announced by Kathleen Sebilius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), said that many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, even if that decree violated moral and ethical beliefs. Robbie George, law professor at Princeton, said, “They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a “right” and “sexual freedom” is a core value is their religion.” That decree caused such an uproar that Obama had to “accommodate” it. The point here, however, is that once again Obama is trying to circumvent the US Constitution. Amendment 1 clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….” So again we see Obama, using HHS, trying to bypass Congress and the US Constitution. At least this time he didn’t try to hide behind “We can’t wait.” Was that the reason for his problems and eventual “accommodation?”
So anytime the US Constitution and Congress doesn’t let him have free reign, he simply says “We can’t wait.” The US Constitution and Congress are, indeed, an obstacle to him – and to his agenda.
But that’s just my opinion.
TOM
you still attack the smart CONSERVATIVES, i KNOW YOU CAN’T STAND IT to look so stupid everytime you come here, and dirty the floor, you are the sad little joker, and nobody will miss you.
you did not add nothing but you sure soil the POST along with Rich who thought he had a friend to help breaking the chairs just useless robots encroched in libstard mud.
ED those are the one I mentioned disrupting the smart conservatives so tolerant to let them have their dirt spill
on the floor
Bees 100 You’re nuts lol
Tom Think you do a great job holding the far right’s feet to the fire.
BTW, rich… the next time you’d like to demean all those evil
dodgers… er, students… as dirt beneath your feet, you might want to include Bill Clinton.Dick Cheney was eligible for the draft from 1959. But we did not send troops officially into Vietnam until 1965. Cheney was no longer eligible for the draft by 1967. Two years of deferment during the active conflict with boots on the ground.
On the flip side of the political aisle, Bill Clinton was eligible for the draft thru the searing heat of the war – from 1964 thru 1972. That’s eight years during the boots on the ground era where student Clinton didn’t serve, nor later serve. Surely Clinton could have, as you say, put his career on hold and serve a few years. /sarc
While some made issues of Clinton’s draft status during his campaigns and presidency, nothing compares to what your side (and you) have done – and still do – to excoriate Cheney, and what others have done – and still do – to demean Bush’s service in the TX Air Guard.
So, ya got any choice words of disdain for him too, just to remain consistent?
Richard Wheeler
congratulation
it’s about time you get the 100, but I help you on this one, to give you a chance to cool of,
after the beating you put yourself in, next time choose your friend better.
there are non better than the SMART CONSERVATIVES,
bye
Ed
you see how Richard Wheeler are, we beat them and they still love us,
and come back for more,
TOM will do the same, he will show up for more beating, that’s who they are.
bye
Mata Let me be clear I believe all able bodied males should serve in time of declared war.No more than one deferrment for max of one year.Strap em up. Yellow ribbons on your Mercedes ain’t gonna get it. As you know most all of our POTUS have served and they do garner a greater respect from me.
Not the deciding factor in who I support but a definate plus.
This is my opinion and I certainly understand those that feel otherwise.
BTW In the good ol days many men joined the Officer Corps to improve their future be it in business or politics.Things have changed.
So for clarification, let me see if this is a proper statement from you, as you said in your comment #36:
Dang… I really hate to have to find myself defending Teflon Bill, but against this characterization of him, I certainly would.
BTW, 12 POTUS had no military service… among them Obama, Clinton, and FDR.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, Rich, you didn’t make that clear, not one little bit. Or did you forget this?
I’ve already addressed Tom’s “fairness” you applaud him for, in numerous posts after his first interjection.
Actually, Rich, the reason I posted in the middle of the mudslinging between you and HR was because I felt a meaningful exchange could be had on the subject WITHOUT the insults. If you noticed, I also didn’t berate you for your own nasty comments, either.
Tom interjected himself into a discussion between you and I, throwing out false accusations and assertions of my commentary to you. You didn’t have a problem with my comments prior to his unwanted intrusion, but yet you applauded his commentary afterwards. What else should I think but that you approve of Tom’s lies about me?
And while I do claim a higher than average knowledge of the Constitution, and of the founder’s writings on it, I certainly don’t claim any title of absolute truth over it either. Larry and I have had many discussions on the topic, and I’m not too proud to deny that I’ve learned things from him, just as I’m sure he’s learned from me. I certainly don’t claim that my words on it are the final verdict, even though I believe that I have a pretty good handle on the subject.
He can, and he has, and in so doing, has called into question my integrity and the previous respect I have shown you. I certainly don’t expect an apology from someone who cannot recognize the truth even if it were to hit him in the head, however, I would expect you to not cheer him on from the sidelines when he utters his insults and vile lies about someone you have previously had respectful discussions with. You ARE better than that, as I and others know. Tom isn’t. The only way of “discussion” for Tom is to hurl insults and lies about the people within the discussion. So, if that’s what you wish to applaud, fine. I certainly don’t have to continue on the respectful track I try to maintain here.
johngalt, I doth believe that Tom’s huffing/puffing demands that you call out HR’s “alleged falsehoods” is the usual red herring by a guy incapable of reading.
First of you, you began your “quiz”, as Tom likes to call it, with the first sentence:
Secondly, why should you be required to call out HR’s “alleged falsehoods” when his diatribe in his first comment was leveled solely at you, by name?
duh…
@Tom:
HR’s comments have nothing to do with it. The difference between the two, me and HR, and you and Rich, is that I never posted any applause for HR’s comments. Do you understand that? No, don’t even bother answering. I already know what you will say.
Unless you wish to attempt reasoned, respectful discourse on an issue or subject, which I don’t believe your capable of considering your past here, then stay the hell out of my discussions with others. I neither need, nor want, your vile, filthy lies and insults. As that is the only way I have seen you interact with others here, I doubt they want it either.
@johngalt:
Are you finished crying? Can you possibly answer some questions instead of tearfully reinventing history?
I posted some of HR’s insults above. Now how many posts went by between those insults and my “interjection” into this discussion? Your arrogance is astonishing, as you try to pose as some benevolent umpire for Rich and HR, when your questions were completely one-sided against Rich and the preordained outcome an insult. You think it’s fair to peg Rich’s faithfulness to his Marine oath on whether he supports policies of Obama when you know very well he voted for Obama? That’s a “fair” intervention to you, one that will lead to an exchange “on the subject WITHOUT the insults”? What is your question if not insulting?
And I asked you a question now FOUR times and you can’t answer. Here’s the fifth time. Will you answer?
@MataHarley:
I think that it is truly a sad state of affairs when I finally start drawing Rich into a lengthy discussion simply to have a jacka** come in throwing his ignorance around the room. Top that off with Rich applauding him for it, and my respect for Rich is much lower than it was, especially when Rich cannot even see Tom for the liar he is.
@johngalt:
Oh, are you calling me “vile” again, John? Yes, I am so vile. Ha ha ha. You are really clueless aren’t you? Here’s something I learned when I was five years old: nothing really hurts unless it’s true. Generic insults aren’t going to cut it. That’s why I don’t feel a thing while you’re having a complete hissy fit meltdown. You were easy to figure out, just like it’s easy to figure out that you know what you did, and that you’re ashamed. You should be, but i threw you a lifeline way back in post 72 and you didn’t grab it. So you can keep flailing in the dark, you won’t land a punch on me . I’m not out here ducking direct questions, I’m not out here lashing out at Rich for ridiculous reasons, I’m not out here pretending I did or didn’t ‘write things that are now set in stone above. That’s you buddy.
Mata You say 12 didn’t serve which confirms a large majority did serve.
NOTE FDR’s son James was a highly decorated Marine Captain with Carlson’s Raiders in WW2
Guys and Gal With H.R. hopefully gone can we cut back a bit on the ugliness and maybe answer some of the questions asked in today’s posts.
I’ll start. I do think Cheney AND Clinton dodged military service in V.N.
@Richard Wheeler: Careful about bragging about those unemployment numbers. It looks like February won’t be a bed of roses unless of course they can spin it that way like they’ve been doing. According to RCP, his poll numbers have been dropping off the last couple of days as well. He’s inching back down to the mid 40′s for approval. The mid 40′s are still better than where he was last year, but given all the favorable press he gets, the fact that he has been campaigning without an opponent since at least August, plus all the negative press that has been given to the Republicans and those approval numbers should be a lot higher almost to the point where he would already have the election sewn up.
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/michael-shedlock/gallup-reports-unemployment-in-february-increases-to-nine-percent
@Tom:
That’s pretty funny, Tom. Crying? Really? You couldn’t think up a better insult than that?
You don’t deserve an answer to your question, Tom, and I don’t feel like giving you anything else you will just twist around to project your hatred on everyone else.
I’ll tell you what. If you can find the exact quote that I uttered calling Rich a traitor, I’ll answer your question. If you cannot find it, you post a retraction of everything you said about me and label yourself a liar. Fair enough?
For reference, you said this in post #53;
The fact that Tom and Rich are demanding Mata and JG denounce me for speaking the facts about both Rich and Tom is monstrously hypocritical on their part. Remember, BOTH of them not only refused to denounce those that were blaming the right for Giffords shooting, but actually defended them.
Mata and JG, I commend you for trying to talk to them, but it’s a waste of time. Rich is little more than a troll. Tom is unbalanced. Calling them bottom feeders would be an undeserving elevation in status.
Rich WAS a patriot. He’s made clear he’s no longer supports America.
Rich, here’s a clue to how FITH you are. The people in charge of the dem party now, were the people calling you a murderer, baby, killer, etc. and cheering for the V.C. and NVA to kill you.
You truly prove liberalism is a mental illness.
@johngalt:
I’m a liar, John? Perhaps if you answer my question, we’d find out whether you are a liar, whether the answer to the question is consistent with what you’ve expressed above and elsewhere on the forum. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful way to have a “meaningful exchange”? Or are you one of those who can have meaningful exchanges on his own terms, when he frames the discussion? Oh, you don’t like being asked a ridiculously loaded question, you just like asking them?
Well anyway, here is it is for the SIXTH time:
rich, it’s not me who’s using the measure of military service as also a measure of patriotism. That’s you. And why you would find the son of a POTUS a measure of redemption for that bizarre attitude is even more baffling.
But speaking about “dodgers”, I’m still waiting for your confirmation of my correction of your statement, as noted in @my comment #105 above:
So will you apply your same measure of draft dodging, of which you freely accuse Cheney, also to Clinton? Or shall I continue to consider you a hypocrite, picking and choosing standards you only apply to those you do not like politically? Simple question…
ADDED… INRE the POTUS military breakdown, out of the 45 POTUS, 12 did not serve, 10 served in militias and/or Continental Army, 23 US armed forces. Eight of the twelve with no service records were since Taft in the past century.
@Tom:
I didn’t call you vile, Tom. I said your lies and insults were vile. Even when presented with a simple sentence like that you show your atrocious lack of reading comprehension. And reading comprehension is an important part of having reasoned discussions over the internet, not that you would know or care though.
@Tom:
I gave you the conditions upon which I’d answer your question, Tom. Have you found my statement calling Rich a traitor yet? I thought not. And since you claim that I did call Rich a traitor, when I clearly did not, that makes you a liar.
johngalt
you are precious here at FA,
TOM is expandable, so
don’t get upset with him, he is not worthy of being angry,
you are to bright to be affected by his insult game ,
he was exposed a long time ago, his only intent is to disrupt the POST WHEN HE SHOW UP,
BYE
TOM
yes you are a liars and trouble maker everytime you come, here,
now leave my friend alone and get your ass out of here. you punk
@johngalt:
Hypothetically, if I clearly establish my belief that “all men are liars” and then asked you, “Oh, John, are you a man or a woman” am I not, in effect, calling you a liar?
So I’ve answered your question, now answer mine. Let me guess, “citing ‘technicalities’ John Gaul reaffirms his right not to respond” While you’re not answering my question, John, here’s another one I don’t expect you to answer, What’s it like to be so afraid to engage someone out of your comfort zone?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
That’s the best shot anyone landed on me today. bravo. Ok, I will leave your little baby friend alone, Bees.
Mata see #112 Just when———– here comes bomb throwing HR in 115. You got my E-MAIL.Lets chat off line.
I’m gonna pump iron then have a beer.
@Hard Right, you’re a big boy who can dish it out and take it. No commendations necessary. Your battle with rich has been longstanding here.
@Richard Wheeler, since you added the answer to my later question, adding Clinton to your “draft dodger” list, I’ll retract my hypocrite opinion of you. I’m just sorry it took hours of prying teeth to get to it.
And speaking of hyperbole and exaggerations…
uh… [buzzer sounds]… wrong again.
That would be your third time. You first asked that of “can any one address” in #84, and I responded in #86. You then came back in your comment #96 for the second time, then specifically demanding johngalt respond. Why, who the hell knows. Since your entry in your comment #53, you haven’t deserved getting the time of day from him.
So this would be the… count ‘em, you can remove your shoes… third time. Not sixth. Once to the forum at large, and this only being the second time specifically to johngalt.
Hard Right
hi, I know you enough to know you never lie,
bye
Hard Right
hi,
I have 2 more you might like, here it is; the CATTLE CALL, and
the UNICORN BY THE IRISH ROVERS, ON UTUBE BOTH
BYE
CATTLE CALL by slim whitman or eddy arnold or tex ritter or roy rogers
Thanks Bees. I’ve heard of the Rovers, but not their music. I’ll check it out.
I’m betting you have this one by Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJlN9jdQFSc&ob=av2e
You know Rich, if these were the Kennedy type democrats, I could understand you supporting them. Supporting this bunch, who hate you and America, is beyond sane explanation.
Hey, I found Tom’s theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfxl_T6ldg&feature=related
H.R. We’re not gonna get another Kennedy.You’re not gonna get another Reagan. You go with what you have. Caroline K. said Barrack was the closest to her dad she’d seen and supported him strongly
I don’t like the direction of the Repub, Party on social issues,and that’s why I’ve supported the Dems primarily since JFK and Bobby.
Honestly, to hear you say Obama or Biden or Hillary Hates Me and America is absurd.Play that card with the indies you’ll get clobbered
Hard Right
yes the song fits very well, that is a better ending than Richard Wheeler’s ending,
REAGAN WILL COME BACK, IN THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL WIN AND TAKE
THE WHITE HOUSE
BY STORM
Pingback: 100+ Disgusting Revelations from Barack Hussein Obama | A Nation In Peril