Obama is a constitutional scholar and I'm the Mayor of Awesomeville

reply to post by filosophia


You can just summarize:

Obama has differing views from myself, and must there fore be wrong.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Do you know anything about the American Revolution? Most residents of Awesomeville simply chug down their frothy mugs of stupid-water, smack their lips at the metallic aftertastes, and blather on about some half-cobbled fantasy based loosely off Braveheart and assorted Charlie Brown holiday specials.

Yes, from what I have read, the O.P. certainly does know about the Revolution for Independence, and so do I. I have also read enough of your posts to doubt you know much about that Revolution, and certainly by reading this post, it is clear that you are confused as to which Mel Gibson movie you mean to reference. You mean The Patriot, not Braveheart. Such a simple mistake was easily handled by just Googling Mel Gibson, but you couldn't be bothered to check your facts, while hastily posting to question the O.P.'s knowledge.

He's saying that the American people do have better things to worry about in their day-to-day.

Sure he is, because everybody knows that what happens with the NFL is far more important than rights, and national debts. Yep, we have better things to do than worry about a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

That is, it's not their job to wrack their brains over the ins and outs of the treasury department.

It shouldn't be "their" job, (how interesting that you separate yourself from the people), but because of an established Federal Reserve, because we have Congressmen and other government officials insisting that the only way to cut spending is to raise the debt ceiling, because we have people in government intent on their steady march towards an aggregation of power, it has become OUR job to wrack our brains over this and figure a way out of this mess. Lord knows the politicians will not do it, and if not US, then who, and if not now, then when?

Well, they clearly know better than you. Defaulting isn't a good thing, you know. Or, well, I guess you don't know.

If they know so much better than the O.P. or We the People in general, then how is it we have come to this problem of facing default?

Oh, there are ways of paying it back. Unfortunately the residents of Awesomeville derp-derp their eyes and wail about how they don't want it to be paid - since that would mean we'd have to collect taxes and halt those fun wars where we're killing infidels.

That's right, operate under the assumption that because you disagree with the O.P. then this must make the O.P. a hawkish neo-con. You and Bush, right? If we're not with you, then we're Republicans, right?

Unappreciated fact; Thomas Jefferson was kind of a dumbass.

I know, right? Not nearly as erudite and as well informed as you are. Geez, makes you wonder where we would be today had you written the Declaration of Independence?

Much like Paris Hilton, he only got anywhere because he was born rich.

Unlike Paris Hilton, however, he did not have his own reality show. Of course, Paris Hilton hasn't been President...yet. Nope, you're right, but all in all, I would say Paris is up on Tom, and clearly the better person.

What would you think of a guy who publishes about the need of mankind for "freedom" yet owned over a hundred slaves, raped a few of them, and refused to release them from bondage even on his deathbed?

Really? I guess this makes a liar of one of Jefferson's slaves then:

Recently Mr. Fossett was invited to deliver an address before the Cincinnati Baptist Ministers' Assocation and in his speech he told the story of his early days, giving many reminiscences of the great founder of the Democratic party. In conversation with the Sunday World reporter he went into greater detail and chatted entertainingly about his life in ´Old Virginny.' ´I was born,' he said, ´at Monticello, Jefferson's beautiful Virginia home, on June 6, 1815, just before Waterloo. Jefferson was an ideal master. He was a democrat in practice as well as theory, was opposed to the slave trade, tried to keep it out of the Territories beyond the Ohio river and was in favor of freeing the slaves in Virginia. In 1787 he introduced that famous "Jefferson proviso" in Congress, prohibiting slavery in all the Northwestern Territory, comprising the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. He had made all arrangements to free his slaves at his death by making three prizes of his property, &c.

www.pbs.org...

I know, I know, impeach the source since it is well known that PBS is a zealous conservative network.

Check the constitution again. The clause you're referring to prevents individual states from minting their own currency; should I explain why to you?

Accepting gold and silver as legal tender would not constitute minting their own currency. Gold and silver have actual wealth, unlike the dollar.

Your presumptions are based on half truths, and filled with agenda, and it sure ain't an agenda of individual rights and sovereignty.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by filosophia

 

Your post is so full of cynicism and hate that I can't take it seriously. Just FYI.

Maybe next time you can formulate a post containing good info (which yours does) without all the unnecessary emotional baggage. For me it just discredits your post.

The palpable outrage by the O.P. does not hold a candle to the current Presidents clear cynicism. This so called "Constitutional scholar" used the State of the Union Address to castigate the Supreme Court over Citizens United, simply because that Court upheld the Supreme Law of the Land, and correctly relied upon the First Amendment to instruct Congress that with the Bipartisan Finance Reform Act they had stepped outside of the scope of their jurisdiction.

The President, in that State of the Union Address, called for Congress to push forth an Amendment that would "overturn" the SCOTUS decision.

If he were actually a Constitutional scholar, instead of a cynical priest class lawyer, he would have known that such imprudence would never fly. Of course, perhaps he did know but was instead being cynical in his estimation of We the People, paying closer attention to the likes of you, rather than the likes of the O.P., using his myopic perception to support his belief that by castigating the Supreme Court, even though they had upheld the Constitution, and correctly struck down a portion of the BPFR, that We the People would assume, simply because the credentialed main stream media has told us - ad nauseum - that he is a "Constitutional scholar", that being this "Constitutional scholar" he must know more than the Justices of the Supreme Court and is really acting on behalf of We the People.

No matter how you slice it, this current President is as cynical as they come.

Really? You don't think that allowing companies to ingest unlimited amounts of cash into the campaigns of the people who represent us is a serious conflict of interest and completely against the spirit and soul of the constitution? I mean I understand that it passed but it only passed by one vote, clearly wasn't a unanimous ruling from the supreme court...In other words, I don't agree with you that it's as black and white, right or wrong as you say.

I mean it's politics as usual. A politician (R or D) will always try and sway public opinion. You act like this is the first time something like this has happened. I would argue that I've seen more of this from members of congress than I have from the President. He rarely loses his calm manner.

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

80%? Really? From What Poll?

Here is your detached leader:

"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.

"This is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people," Obama said. "I hope [Republicans are] not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ...

I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

reply to post by brianmg5


Just a point of clarity. Big Labor spends more than any and all other interests combined More than the banks, more than the big companies and It's all going to one party in particular. Through the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, Big Labor spent $2.2 billion on political activities to place or keep Dems. in power.

Further investigation reveals that the money represented on this chart is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Big Labor spent $2.2 Billion on political activities during the 2008 & 2010 election cycles alone — eclipsing by four times the 20-year $1/2 Billion from the chart.

biggovernment.com...

Its a bitter reality best swallowed with a whiskey chaser.

Originally posted by CORN IS NUTS
Our state just came to an agreement to turn the Gv't back on and both sides admit that they have just "kicked the can down the road". When do we STOP the spending of imaginary money?

The answer of when do we stop imaginary spending? Never, if the politicians have their way.

President:

The good news is that all the leaders continue to believe, rightly, that it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default. We cannot threaten the United States' full faith and credit for the first time in our history.

The US has technically defaulted on its debt – failed to meet its payment obligations to holders of its Treasuries – as recently as 1979.

Back in 1979, mirroring today's events, Republicans were refusing to allow President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, to raise the US debt ceiling. Then, the row was over raising it to $830bn, today, the question is whether to lift the $14.3 trillion limit

www.telegraph.co.uk...

You are right, they will just continue to kick the can down the road and not do anything to change the system. The debt limit was raised to 830 billion in 1979, now it will be raised passed 14.3 trillion, in another 30 years, the debt will be raised to 100 trillion.

President:

First of all, all of us agree that we should use this opportunity to do something meaningful on debt and deficits.

Meaningful? Delaying the inevitable for a few months is meaningful?

meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation;

"for not just this generation but for next generation"...and then that's about it. Raising the debt limit for a few years is not making significant changes, it may not even reach the next generation, and that is IF the new debt limit could last 30 years which is laughable. The previous debt ceiling was just raised this year on February 12, 2010

February 2010 - $14.294 trillion
December 2009 - $12.394 trillion
February 2009 - $12.104 trillion
October 2008 - $11.315 trillion
July 2008 - $10.615 trillion
September 2007 - $9.815 trillion
March 2006 - $8.965 trillion
November 2004 - $8.184
May 2003 - $7.384 trillion
June 2002 - $6.4 trillion
August 1997 - $5.95 trillion
March 1996 - $5.5 trillion
August 1993 - $4.9 trillion
April 1993 - $4.37 trillion
November 1990 - $4.145 trillion
October 1990 - $3.23 trillion
November 1989 - $3.1227 trillion
August 1989 - $2.87 trillion
September 1987 - $2.8 trillion
August 1987 - $2.352 trillion
July 1987 - $2.32 trillion
October 1986 - $2.3 trillion

usgovinfo.about.com...

They can't go a whole year without raising the debt limit. So this is going to be a one trick pony for a long time to come.

reply to post by filosophia


S+F.
But since you have too many and there are some that don't have enough flags and stars, Obama is going to take yours and give them to some people even though they didn't earn them.

reply to post by brianmg5

Really? You don't think that allowing companies to ingest unlimited amounts of cash into the campaigns of the people who represent us is a serious conflict of interest and completely against the spirit and soul of the constitution?

I don't think it is a good idea to statutorily define corporations as a "person" but contrary to popular belief, it was not the Supreme Court who declared corporations a "person" it was Congress who statutorily defined them as so.

Further, the First Amendment is clear on what it say's about the freedom of speech, and that is that Congress shall make no laws. It makes no distinction as to whom or what these laws are directed at, simply that Congress has no authority to do so.

On a finer note, Supreme Court rulings do not "pass" like legislation from Congress does, they are rulings that are held, regardless of the individual decisions made. If not unanimous in their decision, it is known as a split decision.

In other words, I don't agree with you that it's as black and white, right or wrong as you say.

That is the entire point of not just the Bill of Rights, but the fact that a Constitutional republic was established. That republic was established to keep the proclivity towards democracy in check. In other words, the vast majority of people agree with you, and not with me, but fortunately we live under a Constitutional republic where individual rights are held as sacrosanct and people like you can't just willy nilly vote them away.

I mean it's politics as usual. A politician (R or D) will always try and sway public opinion. You act like this is the first time something like this has happened. I would argue that I've seen more of this from members of congress than I have from the President. He rarely loses his calm manner.

If you are just now becoming aware of my presence in this site then I have no doubt that you would be unaware of my tireless efforts to hold all three branches accountable for the misdeeds. Although lately I have been compelled to defend the Supreme Court more often because of all the misinformation being put out about them. If you are aware of my posts in this site, then you must be ignoring them, otherwise what seems to you would not seem so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The President, in that State of the Union Address, called for Congress to push forth an Amendment that would "overturn" the SCOTUS decision. If he were actually a Constitutional scholar, instead of a cynical priest class lawyer, he would have known that such imprudence would never fly.

“It would never fly” ... except when it does, like when the 14th Amendment was adopted and overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Oh, I forgot... you don’t think the 14th Amendment is a ‘real’ amendment. Must be the reason why you believe overruling a Supreme Court decision “would never fly.”

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by brianmg5

 

Just a point of clarity. Big Labor spends more than any and all other interests combined More than the banks, more than the big companies and It's all going to one party in particular. Through the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, Big Labor spent $2.2 billion on political activities to place or keep Dems. in power.

Further investigation reveals that the money represented on this chart is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Big Labor spent $2.2 Billion on political activities during the 2008 & 2010 election cycles alone — eclipsing by four times the 20-year $1/2 Billion from the chart.

biggovernment.com...

Its a bitter reality best swallowed with a whiskey chaser.

Doesn't big labor represent....Labor? As in middle class working people? While I don't think their should be ANY special interest financing our elections I would rather see unions, representing middle class working people, having influence than corporate entities. But in the end they are probably two different cogs in the same machine.

But again, why on earth did we decide to set up our government in such a way that allows special interests to heavily influence the decisions of our representatives? I mean, I understand the representation of special interests but money should not be involved. We the people should shoulder the responsibility of paying for elections. Each candidate would have the same amount as the next candidate.

reply to post by aptness

“It would never fly” ... except when it does, like when the 14th Amendment was adopted and overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford.

People who put out the canard that the 14th Amendment "overruled" Dred Scott v. Sanford are allowing language to speak them, and are certainly not speaking language. The 14th Amendment did not "overturn", (as some "Constitutional scholars would say), the Dred Scott ruling, it rendered it moot, in the very same way the 13th Amendment rendered "the three fifths clause" moot.

Oh, I forgot... you don’t think the 14th Amendment is a ‘real’ amendment. Must be the reason why you believe overruling a Supreme Court decision “would never fly.”

That's it rely on a strawman and misrepresent what I argue. The 14th Amendment is very real, which is why I speak to it as I do. Such fine distinctions may require a bit of discernment from readers, but discernment is a symptom of sanity.

No branch of government can "overrule" or "overturn" the Supreme Court, except for the Supreme Court. Congress can correct problems created by rulings, which was hardly what they did with the 14th Amendment, but certainly did with the 16th Amendment in response to Pollack v Farmer's Loan & Trust. The 16th Amendment did not "overrule", or "overturn" the Pollack ruling, but instead forced the courts, and We the People to view any tax on income not apportioned as an indirect tax rather than an direct tax on income.

Not that We the People in general do so, because too many of the people are about as informed as you are.

reply to post by filosophia


LOVE IT.
Nothing like a great OpEd to be splashed in your face.

reply to post by brianmg5

Doesn't big labor represent....Labor? As in middle class working people?

Big "labor" represents unions, which are chartered entities just like corporations are. Big "labor" represents "labor" in the same way corporations represent consumers, which is to say they don't. Unions represent their own agenda which is as insidious as any other corporation and just as nefarious.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
People who put out the canard that the 14th Amendment "overruled" Dred Scott v. Sanford are allowing language to speak them, and are certainly not speaking language. The 14th Amendment did not "overturn", (as some "Constitutional scholars would say), the Dred Scott ruling, it rendered it moot, in the very same way the 13th Amendment rendered "the three fifths clause" moot.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your opinion.

This was then: Slaughter-House Cases (1873)—

[The first clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.

And this is the Court now: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)—

The provision at issue here, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, significantly altered our system of government. The first sentence of that section provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This unambiguously overruled this Court's contrary holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857), that the Constitution did not recognize black Americans as citizens of the United States or their own State.

No branch of government can "overrule" or "overturn" the Supreme Court, except for the Supreme Court. Congress can correct problems created by rulings

You’re arguing semantics here, and your own words don’t help you at all.

You described President Obama’s suggestion of addressing the outcome of Citizens United as “overturn[ing] the SCOTUS decision,” and, from your supposed explanation, “no branch of government can ‘overrule’ or ‘overturn’ the Supreme Court.”

Since this a thread mocking Obama’s constitutional knowledge, or, as is alleged, lack thereof, I thought maybe Obama did really use the term ‘overturn,’ and this is why you decided to mention that incident here and take exception to the use of the term ‘overturn.’

Here is the transcript of the President’s 2010 State of the Union speech. I quote the relevant part—

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

So in your supposed explanation to me, you stated “No branch of government can ‘overrule’ or ‘overturn’ the Supreme Court, except for the Supreme Court. Congress can correct problems created by rulings,” and Obama, in his State of the Union speech urged “Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems [created by the Citizens United ruling].”

Basically the President said exactly the same thing you did, and didn’t use the term ‘overturn.’

Tell us, then, why you decided to (1) mischaracterize Obama’s remarks and (2) why ‘overturning,’ or, as you prefer, “correct[ing] [the] problems created by” Citizens United “would never fly,” as you initially suggested.

Not that We the People in general do so, because too many of the people are about as informed as you are.

Good thing we have members like you here to inform us ignorant folk.

reply to post by filosophia

...They "know better". They know they should raise the debt limit, 14 trillion is just not high enough. The constitution says a power of congress is to "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" the average person can borrow money on their own credit, but is it wise to borrow 14 trillion and have no way of paying it back? And then say it is unwise not to borrow more? This is why Thomas Jefferson was opposed to the debt clause, but even someone in favor of it has to say there are limits to the debt....

S & F

There are two things that really frost me.

The first is the amount of fat that could easily be cut from the US Government Operating Costs. Much of our tax dollars goes for things that have NOTHING to do with actually running the country.

Look at the crap the government is funding. We can start with all our troops overseas for one. Didn't Obama PROMISE to bring them home????

What about Foreign Aid??? Charity is fine but lets begin AT HOME, especially since the foreign people do not WANT our aid. For example the powdered baby formula mixed with contaminated water that kills off their babies ( true story from an African who came here trying to save the Zebu cattle from Heifers International)

The USAID Operating Expenses alone are $1,564,132,000. The amount of aid to each of a very long list (94 pages) of countries for different programs is mind boggling. For example ”ADJUSTED INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (150 Account)” is $58,492,754,000 and do not forget to add the three extra zeros when you look at the tables. See: www.usaid.gov...

...grant programs award some $500 Billion in grants to those people and organizations that qualify for such funding....

The Federal Reserve has totally committed to buying $1.25 Trillion in poor credit card debt by way of March 31, 2011.... (Remember this is debt created out of thin air by the bankers so it is actually a BANKER BAILOUT

) us-government-grants.org...

No where in the US Constitution does it say the government should be wasting tax payer money on these type of programs especially IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES and especially when we CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THEM!

Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, states It is now "statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations". I suggest you read his article at: www.silverbearcafe.com...

This means we could be facing bankruptcy as a country and banker imposed SAPs

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans.....

SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most...

...By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.....

Doesn't it make sense to trim the budget NOW before the Banksters get a real stranglehold???

TAXES

It seem the answer to trimming the budjet is always lets raise taxes instead. BAD MOVE! The effect of excessive taxes on the economy (Job Creation) is well known and verified by real life experience. Raising taxes during an economic depression errr no I mean "down turn" is economically suicidal

...The marginal tax rate is crucial because it affects the incentive to earn. The marginal tax rate reveals how much of one’s additional income must be turned over to the tax collector as well as how much is retained by the individual....

An increase in marginal tax rates adversely affects the output of an economy in two ways. First, the higher marginal rates reduce the payoff people derive from work and from other taxable productive activities. When people are prohibited from reaping much of what they sow, they will sow more sparingly. Thus, when marginal tax rates rise, some people—those with working spouses, for example—will opt out of the labor force. Others will decide to take more vacation time, retire earlier, or forgo overtime opportunities. Still others will decide to forgo promising but risky business opportunities....

Critics of supply-side economics point out that most estimates of the elasticity of labor supply indicate that a 10 percent change in after-tax wages increases the quantity of labor supplied by only 1 or 2 percent.... Recent work by Edward Prescott, corecipient of the 2004 Nobel Prize in economics, used differences in marginal tax rates between France and the United States to make such a comparison. Prescott found that the elasticity of the long-run labor supply was substantially greater than in the short-run supply and that differences in tax rates between France and the United States explained nearly all of the 30 percent shortfall of labor inputs in France compared with the United States. He concluded:

I find it remarkable that virtually all of the large difference in labor supply between France and the United States is due to differences in tax systems. I expected institutional constraints on the operation of labor markets and the nature of the unemployment benefit system to be more important. I was surprised that the welfare gain from reducing the intratemporal tax wedge is so large. (Prescott 2002, p. 9)

....Because marginal tax rates affect real output, they also affect government revenue. An increase in marginal tax rates shrinks the tax base, both by discouraging work effort and by encouraging tax avoidance and even tax evasion. This shrinkage necessarily means that an increase in tax rates leads to a less than proportional increase in tax revenues. Indeed, economist Arthur Laffer (of “Laffer curve” fame) popularized the notion that higher tax rates may actually cause the tax base to shrink so much that tax revenues will decline, and that a cut in tax rates may increase the tax base so much that tax revenues increase....

The former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving toward supply-side tax policies... If Russians with even modest earnings complied with the law, the tax collector took well over half of their incremental income. Beginning in January 2001, the newly elected Putin administration shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced the payroll tax rate. The results were striking. Tax compliance increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following the adoption of the flat-rate tax. Further, the real growth rate of the Russian economy averaged 7 percent during 2001–2003, up from less than 2 percent during the three years prior to the tax cut.

Ukraine soon followed Russia’s lead.... www.econlib.org...

The Grace Report in 1984 found fully one third of US taxes were not collected and as taxes increased so did the underground economy. This is why Obamacare had a tax code change requiring all businesses to file 1099 forms on vendors. Luckly that provision has since been repealed.

Any tax increase ALWAYS hits the middle and upper middle class. The very wealthy 1% who have 90% of the wealth find loopholes or other "evasions" Therefore the brunt of any new taxes will fall on the small business people who are actually creating new jobs and growing the economy.

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

Small firms:
*Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

*Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

*Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.

* Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

* Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

* Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
* Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

* Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

* Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited...

THIS is the group we are getting our new jobs from.

THIS is the group that will actually be taxed.

THIS is the group the ELITE banker/corporate cartels want to kill off!!!! Because they are the ones who will keep the USA going and prevent the Elite from pushing us into "Global Governance"

reply to post by aptness

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your opinion. This was then: Slaughter-House Cases (1873)—

Supreme Court Justices are fallible too, and will allow language to speak them as well. This is why there is often split decisions, as was certainly the case with the Slaughter House cases, which was a 5-4 decision.

If what you are relying upon were actually true in American jurisprudence, it would render the power of judicial review meaningless. Congress could just pass an Amendment "overruling" what was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court.

Indeed, both the Slaughter House cases, and the McDonald ruling show how problematic sloppy use of language can be. It is not as if these two cases, with the language you have quoted overturned Marbury v. Madison. Nor should they be construed to assume the Supreme Court is endorsing the notion that Congress need only pass an Amendment or legislation to overrule the Supreme Court.

Simple logic and reasoning dictates that the reality of the 14th Amendment renders Dred Scott moot. The Supreme Court, in Dred Scott, disingenuously claimed they had no jurisdiction to hear Scott's complaint because he was not a citizen of the state in which he had brought the complaint, nor was he a citizen of any state.

However, this ideology that only citizen's are afforded protection of natural and unalienable rights is nothing more than agenda driven drivel. Dred Scot did not need to be a citizen in order to seek a redress of grievance, for surely the First Amendment does not make any distinction to citizenship regarding such a right. It is a bogus assumption made not just by misinformed jurists, but you as well.

Since this a thread mocking Obama’s constitutional knowledge, or, as is alleged, lack thereof, I thought maybe Obama did really use the term ‘overturn,’ and this is why you decided to mention that incident here and take exception to the use of the term ‘overturn.’

It was not the word "overturn" I took exception to, it was his willful ignorance of the legal reasoning behind Citizens United which relied heavily upon a First Amendment that flat out and expressly forbids Congress from doing what they did with the BPFR Act.

That said, I was in error by ascribing the use of the word "overturn" when describing Obama's Address. I was going from memory and should have checked the transcript myself in order to avoid the imprudent use of sloppy language myself. Speaking language and not allowing language to speak you is a discipline that take a life time of work.

However, I would also suggest that the surest and best way to "correct the problems" that may have arisen from the Citizens United ruling would be by repealing specific definitions legislated by Congress that define corporations as a "person". I sincerely doubt that this was what Obama was advocating. You tell me, do you think Obama would agree with me here? Do you think Obama was urging Congress to repeal definitions defining corporations as "person"?

So in your supposed explanation to me, you stated “No branch of government can ‘overrule’ or ‘overturn’ the Supreme Court, except for the Supreme Court. Congress can correct problems created by rulings,” and Obama, in his State of the Union speech urged “Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems [created by the Citizens United ruling].”

As you state below this quote, the President said basically the same thing I said. Do you think he means what I mean?

Tell us, then, why you decided to (1) mischaracterize Obama’s remarks and (2) why ‘overturning,’ or, as you prefer, “correct[ing] [the] problems created by” Citizens United “would never fly,” as you initially suggested.

I have explained just not in this post, but in others in this thread, that the surest way to correct any problems that arise from the Citizens United ruling is to repeal the definitions of "person" in regards to corporations., That would most assuredly fly. If Congress attempted to simply just create an Act, or Amendment "overturning" the Citizen's United ruling, it would never fly, and specifically because they would be indirectly "overturning" the First Amendment.

Neither Obama, nor the vast majority of members of Congress show any interest at all in protection of the rights of individuals. Obama using the State of the Union Address to castigate the SCOTUS for a sound opinion was hardly Presidential, and it did not - in spite of the fact he used language similar to mine - prove him to be a "Constitutional scholar". There is, quite simply, no argument as to what the First Amendment say's and what it means. "Congress shall make no laws..." is far more unambiguous in its language and intent, than the 14th Amendment is in its, despite what Justice Alito say's.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Check the constitution again. The clause you're referring to prevents individual states from minting their own currency; should I explain why to you?

YEAH, That clause from the Constitution is a real doozy!

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility..... www.usconstitution.net...

PART III. THE FEDERAL CONVENTION SHUTS AND BARS THE DOORS AGAINST PAPER MONEY. FROM 14TH MAY TO 17TH SEPTEMBER, 1787

....electing as its president George Washington, who of all the public men in his day was the most decided in convictions and the most outspoken in his words on the inherent dishonesty of irredeemable paper bills.....
Virginia took the lead, and Randolph, its governor, in his opening speech drew attention to paper money by reminding his hearers that the patriotic authors of the confederation did their work "in the infancy of the science of constitutions and of confederacies, when the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen."

Among the delegates of Connecticut were Oliver Ellsworth, who in the federal congress had repeatedly served on committees for the reform of the federal constitution, and Roger Sherman, who in 1752 had published his conviction that good laws and paper money are irreconcilable. They agreed to insist in the convention "that the legislatures of the individual states ought not to possess a right to emit bills of credit for a currency, or in any manner to obstruct the recovery of debts, whereby the interests of foreigners, or the citizens of any other state, may be affected."

The refusal of the convention to confer on the legislature of the United States the power to emit bills of credit or irredeemable paper money in any form is so complete that, according to all rules by which public documents are interpreted, it should not be treated as questionable.....

.....The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the constitution, was as follows: "The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States." The journal of the convention for August 16th makes this record: "It was moved and seconded to strike out the words 'and emit bills,' "and the motion to strike out these words "passed in the affirmative. Yeas: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia--9. Nays: New Jersey, Maryland--2." So the convention, by a vote of more than four to one, refused to grant to the legislature of the United States the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States."

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts." lexrex.com...

Seems the Federal Reserve notes (without silver or gold backing) are completely unconstitutional!!!!

www.whitehouse.gov...

Ladies and Gentlemen, your globalist teleprompter:

All the congressional leaders have reiterated the desire to make sure that the United States does not default on our obligations, and that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.

All the congressional leaders, huh? Even Ron Paul? Oh, you mean all the congressional 'leaders' as opposed to congressmen, I wasn't aware there was a distinction in the constitution between congressmen and congressional leaders. I knew there was a distinction between congressmen and senators, but not congressmen and congressional leaders. I suppose we now have three classes of people: citizens, officials, and citizens in government but whom aren't officials (Ron Paul).

We cannot threaten the United States' full faith and credit for the first time in our history.

The faith is there, and the credit, just not the gold. How can you honestly say you have never threatened the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States when the United States dollar lost its connection to gold and is now backed by nothing?

And for the general public -- I’ve said this before but I just want to reiterate -- this is not some abstract issue. These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. Congress has run up the credit card, and we now have an obligation to pay our bills.

So the congress has run up the credit, irregardless of the fact that the public was 95% opposed to the bail outs, and so now the moral imperative is to take out more debt to pay the old debt? Is this how the Obama household operates? Or is this more along the lines of the credit card junkie?

If we do not, it could have a whole set of adverse consequences. We could end up with a situation, for example, where interest rates rise for everybody all throughout the country,

The federal reserve decides what the interest rate is so the interest rates will not 'suddenly' rise unless they want it to.

Now, what is important is that even as we raise the debt ceiling, we also solve the problem of underlying debt and deficits.

So raising the debt limit solves the problem of debt?

War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Debt is Prosperity.

I see the workings of a credit card fraudster here more so than a constitutional scholar. It's starting to make sense why Obama has a counterfeit social security number, he probably used it to obtain a credit card to pay down his previous credit card debt. He just found a smarter way to get debt, by throwing it onto the tax payer and blaming congress.

I’m glad that congressional leaders don’t want to default, but I think the American people expect more than that.

The American people expect you to be kicked out of office and deported from the country for being an illegal alien and a globalist shill.

-Mayor

Originally posted by crimvelvet


Seems the Federal Reserve notes (without silver or gold backing) are completely unconstitutional!!!!

Even with silver or gold backing bills of credit are still unconstitutional. You pointed out the passage where states are specifically prohibited from using anything but gold and silver as legal tender. The federal mafia argument is that the states can not emit bills of credit, but no such prohibition is reserved for the federal government so its okay. This is wrong on multiple levels. On a constitutional level, it is wrong because congress can only coin money, not print money. Coining money is placing an authorized weight and measure to a gold or silver coin. Even if the federal government was allowed to print money, the states can not constitutionally accept that paper money as legal tender. On a federal level, their delusion of being able to print paper money is further wrong because the federal reserve is "independent" of government so you can't say that the federal government is allowed to print bills of credit when the federal reserve which is "independent" of the government does that job. This is a side note really and should not blur the obvious fact that it is first and foremost illegal under the constitution. The fact that their federal law does not even add up is just a further example of their criminality--they can't even follow their own laws!

reply to post by EyeHeartBigfoot

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

80%? Really? From What Poll?

Some how I smell Stan Greenberg, pollster and hubby of Rosa DeLauro on that one. He is rather slimy, a globalist and a real sheeple manipulator.

....Republican pollster Frank Luntz says "Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn't just have a finger on the people's pulse; he's got an IV injected into it.” ilf.ndi.org...

HOW TO LIE WITH POLLS:

Rasmussen: Voters oppose tax hikes in debt-ceiling deal 55/34
Call it Dueling Pollsters....
...The difference might be in the way the questions were asked, being mindful of the Pollster-in-Chief’s warning on survey language. Rasmussen’s question seems a little more straightforward, if generic:

As part of Legislation to Raise Debt Ceiling Should Congress and President Raise Taxes?

Quinnipiac is more specific:

Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?

That is a perfectly legitimate question; the context of tax hikes from the White House has been to raise taxes on corporations and higher-income earners. However, the term “wealthy” will provoke some emotional response (and it’s arguably inaccurate,....) hotair.com...

From HUFFn'PUFF

...Greenberg warns the Obama administration and Democrats that "the past is a trap." Political messages about who was more responsible for the financial crash or about the merits of the recovery effort, "tested dismally" in the survey.

Instead, Greenberg argues for Democratic messages that fully embrace the new economic reality. The messages that tested better in his survey: reject both "credit-taking" and the "blame game," concede that "immense economic problems will take years to solve" and emphasize economic and budget solutions that "ask the richest to pay their fair share of taxes," support "education and innovation" and "confront the power of money and the lobbyists."

For more, read the complete Democracy Corp report.

REFERENCES:
Greenberg Carville Shrum

Directed Campaigns in 60 countries

Carville and dirty politics


Bolivia fiasco