Unconstitutional? Obama 1st US Pres ever to become UN Security council chairman

reply to post by YouSir


You could very well be right... I may have misread the sarcasm. I was replying with a history of posting and thread participation in mind for context to that one. Who knows.... It's that time of year again and end of semester and terms. My brain is a bit mushy and likely will be for a week or so more.

reply to post by hellobruce


I disagree because you keep skirting my point. My point is we are in decline in every sense of the word. We will fall and it will shadow romes. And yet,he deems it necessary to undertake more stuff to pile on top of the things he cant take care of in the first place. Now what logical sense does that make? Youve made no point with me to remotely convince me of otherwise.

Be gone troll.


BTW. Are any of you christians? did you know they are considering court martialling a soldier for being just that. And obama is doing a good job? I dont think so. He congratulates a confessed gay basketball player for being courageous, but ignores those who actually were courageous. The earth will correct this if we dont. This guy is close to forming what some christians would believe to be the anti christ. Traits? good speaker, Hegemonistic views. One currency, Obama care for the chip he is working out. ie, mark of the beast. Just sayin, If you look, It all kinda adds up. Kinda similar with the left behind series........lol. but these ARE the traits to get the public on your side. Like Hitler.

Originally posted by mactheaxe
And yet,he deems it necessary to undertake more stuff to pile on top of the things he cant take care of in the first place.

This was 1 meeting 4 years ago, the Obama trollers have nothing better to do than whine about a meeting Obama chaired 4 years ago...

Are any of you christians? did you know they are considering court martialling a soldier for being just that

So what is the soldiers name then?

So in 2009 Obama and a bunch of other world leaders make a trip to the UN after their staffs have spent months working on an agreement about limiting nukes. Everybody sits down, Obama gives a speech and they all vote for the motion and then they leave. So something that took 2 hours 4 years ago that anybody with a 5th grade reading level or better understands is completely consitutional is now brought out like it is something new. I swear the IQ level here has been on a steady decline as of late.

dont know the names, but this should enlighten you.



radio.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by MrSpad
So in 2009 Obama and a bunch of other world leaders make a trip to the UN after their staffs have spent months working on an agreement about limiting nukes. Everybody sits down, Obama gives a speech and they all vote for the motion and then they leave. So something that took 2 hours 4 years ago that anybody with a 5th grade reading level or better understands is completely consitutional is now brought out like it is something new. I swear the IQ level here has been on a steady decline as of late.

of course the context of the speech doesnt matter right? We support this. This is what he said no? I dont see any supporters, nor have I heard of any. You call into question with your own IQ not offering any facts, or anything backing your claim and comments up. So, in conclusion, Your words mean nothing. They are meant to play it off as unimportant.

Originally posted by Agent008
reply to post by cripmeister

 

I get that but its still kind of sketchy ya? Does O-Dawg not have responsibility to the USA first?
Its like if the ceo of pepsi went to work at coca-cola for the day, everyone would be like wtf dude?

I think it would be precisely not like that. What it would be like would be if the CEO of Pepsi went to work for the International Beverage Association for a day ... compellingly less shocking, huh?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


that was a great left behind series.... ya this is a little like that!!!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, just to make sure we are on the same page then.
Obama has decided to lead the non-proliferation talks and becomes the chairman

Now, the wingers on ATS believe that the United Nations is actually a country verses a organization of the global societies..and that him becoming chairman is therefore a office by a foreign country.

So..ok, I will accept it, once they show me on a map where the country of United Nations is...maybe sing their anthem...tell me some of their local cuisines?


But as usual, this doesn't even quality as a non-issue..its a imaginary issue. At least the Obama is a reptilian crowd made sense...nonsense..but sense was part of the word.

To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

www.infowars.com...

you can of course show us all on this thread where congress supplied its consent?

Obama authorized the use of military force in Libya without Congressional approval. After criticism Obama said, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.” And then he claimed the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council authorized his declaration.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war…not the United Nations

www.conservative-daily.com...

double post

Originally posted by Danbones

from any King, Prince, or foreign State

you can of course show us all on this thread where congress supplied its consent?

How about you show us all where the UN is a "King, Prince, or foreign State"?

Why do you ignore 22 USC § 287 - Representation in Organization?

(f) Representation by President or Secretary of State Nothing contained in this section shall preclude the President or the Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, from representing the United States at any meeting or session of any organ or agency of the United Nations.

This happened 4 years ago, yet some people are still going on about it!

reply to post by roguetechie


Thanks for the reply. For some reason I cant quote you to respond, so will just hit on the two points you made

1) The meeting was going to happen, The choice for the current president was either at a position of weakness, or strength. Strength being chairman, weakness being simply a participant. Your saying it is somehow reflecting his focus on America if he choose strength over weakness? No. It takes equal time to be on either side, but being at the head allows for him to actively protect his interest (that being nuclear reduction) than just sitting there while someone else drives the bus.

2) We are part of the UN. There is nothing dubious about protecting and promoting your interest within the global discussions on any level. Until we leave the UN, then its good we try to remain holding the steering wheel whenever we can.

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, just to make sure we are on the same page then.
Obama has decided to lead the non-proliferation talks and becomes the chairman

Now, the wingers on ATS believe that the United Nations is actually a country verses a organization of the global societies..and that him becoming chairman is therefore a office by a foreign country.

So..ok, I will accept it, once they show me on a map where the country of United Nations is...maybe sing their anthem...tell me some of their local cuisines?


But as usual, this doesn't even quality as a non-issue..its a imaginary issue. At least the Obama is a reptilian crowd made sense...nonsense..but sense was part of the word.

To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

www.infowars.com...

you can of course show us all on this thread where congress supplied its consent?

...from any King, Prince, or foreign State
The UN is neither a king, nor a prince, nor a foreign state..not even a king of rock or a state of insanity..it is a international organization in which we, the US, is part of.
Again, no king..no prince...no foreign state. Authorization by congress is akin to asking Congress if he can wear a bowtie in how relevant it is.

Since when is it Congress's responsibility to make the POTUS's schedule on who he talks to, because that's all it is.

"any office"
I think you assume the commas don't exist
they do
and my question still stands
especially since the declaration of war n Lybia skipped the consent of congress as well

Originally posted by hellobruce
This happened 4 years ago, yet some people are still going on about it!

And this time next year, this subject will again be posted.
Its not about being right or wrong, its about bringing it up over and over (regardless of how crazy it is). Why? because down the line, when the memory of specifics are gone, they will simply remember all the controversy about him and something about selling out to the UN, some questioning of something unconstitutional he did or some such and blargh, vote the Republican, because all that controversy around the Dems is scary, etc.

Its a sham, its programming for the long game. the whole "Does he look tired to you?" question that eventually leads to rumors, innuendos, and a eventual collapse due to a shellgame of facts.

Then we will get a person that properly rips the constitution a new butthole and start some proper wars unilaterally verses a un consensus no fly zone thing that people pretend is the same in these parts.

Violating the american people and the constitution are just another day at the office it seems for Mr Obama
here is a nice list of his handyworks for you Saturn
(mods I hope you will let this post stand )

Barrack Obama should be impeached for any one of the following violations of the Constitution, of course he is not the first president to violate the Constitution, he just better at it than any of his predecessors.
The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress at the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first”. Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.
By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.
#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.
#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.
#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.
#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.
#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.
#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegal’s into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.
#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.
And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is …
#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”
The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:
For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines

cecilcountypatriots.ning.com...

four years ago?
you let a criminal have success with out exorsising your duty to do justice
and you just get more crime

expensive crime
the kind that wipes a country out

and I spelt exersize wrong on purple

Originally posted by SaturnFX
And this time next year, this subject will again be posted.

Of course it will, as stupid claims like this are all Obama haters have.

The Obama birther nonsense is a dead duck, every single court case, over 200 of them has been lost by the birthers as all they have is lies. Just like the lie that Obama chairing a meeting at the UN is unconstitutional!

Its not about being right or wrong, its about bringing it up over and over (regardless of how crazy it is).

The only people whining about this are Obama haters, no one in congress cared as he is allowed to do it.... and yes, it is very crazy.

Well thanks everyone for taking the time to hash this out for the 5th time in a dynamic, fluid manner that I can participate in. I learn better this way. Rather than just reading. Questions. I like to ask them.

I do know I'm ignorant in politics, it's new grounds for me. I'm learning, from both sides. I'm glad this thread has been rehashed, as I wasn't around to take part in the others.

Peace,
Cirque

pS if I may
using the term "haters" to address a political position in a debate is the hall mark of someone who has nothing better to say
well
there are nine more points you Constition lovers can deal with I suppose