In another thread, I addressed the unconstitutionality of Obama and his proposed policies. Some people took issue with the fact I believe Obama
wouldn't know the Constitution if it walked up and kicked him right in the groin.
In the spirit of not derailing a thread on a different topic, I started this one to take on all comers who think Obama is a Constitutional scholar.
I will begin by addressing Observer and his rebuttal to my comment found here
I gather you are "strict constructionist"?
Absolutely. If the founders meant for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document" (as in its interpretations change with the times), there
wouldn't have been a need to include an amendment process.
Paid-leave systems. These are an extension of the Family Medical Leave Act and while I can see how this could be abused it could also be a
Why should a business owner be forced to pay employees for their PERSONAL choices? Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to granting government
the power to enforce this.
Article 1 Section 8
Child care- again this is not boogy man Obama, this has been out there a long time. He just wants to make it better. Par tof the reason the gov had to
step in on this is due to unchecked corporations driving salaries so low that both parents (if there are two) must work to make ends meet. Many
families work low wage jobs that make affording child care difficult to say the least, so rather than force these families to choose living under a
bridge, the gov steps in to help them offset the cost child care so they can afford to live in a crappy apartment
details each and every expenditure the government
may make with OUR money. Sadly for you and people who share your thinking, childcare isn't anywhere to be found. If times are so tough, perhaps
people should wait to have children until they can afford to properly care for said child. Thats called personal responsibility.
Child health insurance, I see no reason to let poor children suffer because our health care system is broken.
I see no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize other peoples children. Same goes with the miserable failure known as the public education system.
I can afford to provide for my son, including health insurance. Why should I be forced to pay for others who aren't as responsible?
As for the minimum-wage issue... I find it difficult to even argue. How on earth can anyone be against the working poor being advocated for? I mean
OMG, you mean Obama wants the poor to actually be able to LIVE! How DARE he! Surely we do not want burger flippers to have the chance to eat or save.
They are to serve me food and live, themselves, only hand to mouth.
You're kidding right? Minimum wage isn't, nor was it ever meant to be a "living wage". Get ready for this, and it may come as a surprise, but
minimum wage is gasp! an ENTRY LEVEL Wage!!!!! What motivation is there for people to better themselves and actually get marketable skills if they can
flip burgers and make 15 bucks per hour?
Ever ask yourself why you see so many teenagers, illegal immigrants, and ex-cons working minimum wage jobs? It's because they dont have any other
marketable job skills.
World poverty reduction- no, not covered by the Constitution. However, since most of the terrorists that want us dead are from poverty stricken
backwaters it seems to make sense to try to help those areas become prosperous thus reducing the venom and anger in those regions held against the
West, since one of the main reasons, ultimately, that youth in these poors regions hate us is due to our affluence.
Ah so we should completely disregard the Constitution and basically bribe our way out of trouble? Why not give everyone in prison for robbery 10
million dollars just so they won't do it again?
You said it yourself, it's not covered by the Constitution. Each and every form of foreign aid (aka international welfare) is unconstitutional.
Overlooking the Constitution in hopes of perceived safety? You really want to continue down that path?
since the internet was invented with unconstitutionally invested tax dollars
Really? DARPA wasn't providing for the common defense when they invented this series of tubes?
It wasn't promoting the progress of science as authorized in A1S8?