Mr. Obama believes that his oath of office is subject to interpretation

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The Constitution is the guarantor of Individual Rights which, of course, is in direct conflict with the Progressive Agenda which is the collectivization of America (the road to socialism...which is the road to serfdom also).

Just like your guns and bibles, you're clinging to an outdated, unworkable and obsolete document, you place too much faith in it, learn to leave the past where it belongs, lean forward, embrace change, accept the new world agendas, spread the wealth around.

We're not inaugurating a president here, we are crowning a king, worshiping our new savior, he is the ONE!

Bow down and praise him now, join your new fellow citizens of the world.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The Constitution is the guarantor of Individual Rights which, of course, is in direct conflict with the Progressive Agenda which is the collectivization of America (the road to socialism...which is the road to serfdom also).

While progressives has been conflict with constitution before, ending slavery, womans right to vote etc. The rest of that crap about the collectivizatin of America and socialism and serfs is just a bunch of words tossed together that hold no logic nor any besis in reality.

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So the man that took an oath to defend the constitution which reads the 2nd amendment for one, who then attacked the 2nd amendment, made a great speech after taking another oath to defend the constitution after attacking the 2nd amendment.

Anyone can say anything...I simply asked you to back it up with factual evidence and rational explanations...

Your response was the above...that is your opinion...and one that you have failed to support.

I searched the transcript of President Obama's speech on guns for mention of the 2nd amendment..

I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation.

Now...you can paint whatever you want...give opinions...talk of tyranny...whatever you like, but that is what he said on the matter. I prefer to deal with facts.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The Constitution is the guarantor of Individual Rights which, of course, is in direct conflict with the Progressive Agenda which is the collectivization of America (the road to socialism...which is the road to serfdom also).

I don't have my Glen Beck dictionary nearby...could you explain what those terms mean to you and how they are relevant to any sane conversation in the present day United States of America?

Originally posted by MrSpad

While progressives has been conflict with constitution before, ending slavery, womans right to vote etc.

I would argue...on this day more than others...that those things were a fullfillment of the consitution, not conflicting with it.

And yes... I am going to qoute MLK on MLK day

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

reply to post by Indigo5


What a load of crap yep anyone can say anything like this guy Obama does not support the constitution and the 2nd.



Just because a person has a right nope they don't have a right and regardless of fact his general rule is use government no matter what.

Click here for more information.

I love Obama haters...these idiots can make anything out of nothing. Get a freaking life people and stop looking for useless crap and pay attention to the real issues out there.

reply to post by txinfidel

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Nope...no ambiguity there. All men, EACH man is endowed with certain unalienable rights, quite clear.

The Fifth Amendment limits the use of evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement officers. Originally, at common law, even a confession obtained by torture was admissible. In the eighteenth century, common law in England provided that coerced confessions were inadmissible. The common law rule was incorporated into American law by the courts. However, the use of brutal torture to extract confessions was routine in certain jurisdictions[citation needed] until at least 1991 (see Jon_Burge) though the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled convictions based on such confessions, in cases like Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).

There you have the reason why Obama is saying that it does not apply to an individual man...because the NDAA is not only illegal, it is completely unconsitutional and against common law, (magna carta 13th century) which is the basis for much of the US constitution.

Can anyone say 'due process' or water boarding?

Of course Obama would try to weasle out of it using semantics, otherwise it's basically an admission of treason by him and his government.

ATTENTION!

Please discuss the higher elements of this topic and not drag it into base political bickering that can be found anywhere else on the internet.

Did anyone notice that Obama said “sta” instead of “state” in the second oath, the one he took today, Monday the 21st.

Here’s the quote “The office of the President of the United Sta”

And here's the video

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

He has already shown that the requirement of being a "Natural Born Citizen" is subject to interpretation (if not obfuscation).

Dont.
Just Dont.
Ive read your other postings and your..just...not...that....dumb.

I'll share my thread, which is also about the President's oath.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The Constitution IS subject to interpretation. It happens all the time. Various people interpret it different ways. That's why we have all these analyses by lawyers, politicians, and regular people.

This deserves no response from me. The constitution as agreed upon and signed by our founding fathers is not up for debate and never has been. Without it, we have no nation, no common ground, no honor and no principals. Thank you.

But here it is for s+g's

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.
They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.
You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.
You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Again it is an oath, not a debate. Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Your welcome.

edit on 21-1-2013 by txinfidel because: (no reason given)

ok smart guy then why over the past 200 years, has the US supreme court ruled on constitutional interpretation cases??? what do you think the supreme court does? traffic ticket rulings? c'mon, if someone said to you that the party was a blast last night, would you call the police because you thought the person bombed something? because his rhetoric is not exactly to your liking, doesn't make it a conspirecy.

and...something that is "not so different".....is....still...."different"....meaning it's not exactly the same

well, I bet y'all would have gotten your panties in a bunch if wished to be referred to as "your excellency" like some of the founding fathers did

reply to post by jimmyx


Because the role of the supreme court is to determine wether individual cases are protected by the constitution or not.

It is not the role of the supreme court to come up with hypothetical scenarios and legislation to challenge the merit of the constitutional amendments. That would be King Obamas role.

But thanks for playing.

reply to post by ausername

Could you speak a little clearer....your tongue in your cheek makes it harder to understand you.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Is it dumb to challenge the complacent and conventional "wisdom" (and I mean "wisdom" sarcastically)? The POTUS has spend 7 figures keeping the documents that define his past hidden (plus his first EO, 4 yrs ago). When he finally presented a BC it was an obvious fraud (not the purpose of this thread to go into here...let alone his CT Selective Service Card?)...and that is not even the most relevant issue which is that his father was not a US citizen and his mother was a minor (defacto non naturalized citizen....the BC was a smoke screen).

reply to post by jimmyx

He was using his inauguration speech as the "bully pulpit" to persuade the citizenry to adopt his agenda (ie, gun control et al) via the "democratic process".....to the detriment of the republic.