Posted on 08/17/2013 10:03:18 AM PDT by Innovative
The Obama administration announced last month via blog post that the president was unilaterally suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate—notwithstanding the clear command of the law. President Obama's comments about it on Aug. 9—claiming that "the normal thing [he] would prefer to do" is seek a "change to the law"—then added insult to constitutional injury. It also offers a sharp contrast with a different president who also suspended the law.
As for Republican congressmen who had the temerity to question his authority, Mr. Obama said only: "I'm not concerned about their opinions—very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." Mr. Obama made no mention of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin—a Democrat, a lawyer and one of the authors of ObamaCare—who said: "This was the law. How can they change the law?"
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Lincoln and FDR never let the Constitution get in their way either.
touche. :)
Republicans cower
The headlines giving cover,
He breaks the law
Ready - Aim - FIRE!!!
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
I love that! I'm borrowing it and all it's spot-on applications in describing Fuhrer Barry, of Indonesia.
100%...
Re: “I’m not sure Lincoln is the best President to invoke here....”
Man, you got that right!
I am not a big fan of Abe Lincoln’s Constitutional integrity.
In my opinion, Lincoln’s single minded goal in the Civil War was the absolute destruction of slavery, which was a noble and necessary act.
However, he hid behind the political and propaganda straw man of “Preserving the Union.”
I flat out do not believe that millions of Northern soldiers were motivated to risk their lives and treasure in order to “Preserve the Union.”
I mean, how many people on this website would risk their lives and treasure to stop California from seceding from the Union?
The only reason we would fight would be if California threatened neighboring states with hostile actions.
I have news for you. Lincoln did it too.
Yeah, I’m thinking he’d say something like “Way to go”.
In my opinion, Lincoln’s single minded goal in the Civil War was the absolute destruction of slavery, which was a noble and necessary act.
I believe Lincoln put an end to slavery with none but the deepest reluctance, and then only as a means to hasten the Confederacy's defeat. He held a very low opinion of Negroes all his life, never campaigned for office or prosecuted the war as an abolitionist, and freed slaves only in the Confederacy, not the nation as a whole.
Lincoln expended a lot of effort and political capital to get slavery permanently abolished through constitutional amendment. He didn’t have to do that to merely preserve the Union.
“I flat out do not believe that millions of Northern soldiers were motivated to risk their lives and treasure in order to “Preserve the Union. I mean, how many people on this website would risk their lives and treasure to stop California from seceding from the Union?”
It is always dangerous to apply current attitudes and moralities to people in other times. During the war, some observers at the time noted the kind of flabergasting bravery soldiers of both sides displayed standing there in ranks firing volleys at each other. Yet they did. “Preserving the Union” is an important reason out of many reasons cited in Union soldier’s diaries and letters. For the Southern soldier is was states rights and preserving Southern “culture”.
In the end, ‘esprit de corps’ is why these men fought so bravely. They did it for each other regardless of the motivation that got them into the army in the first place. In the case of the Civil War, units were often raised locally and stayed together, you could have friends or the sons of local people next to you.
I recently read Mein Kampf and do not recall what you are saying being in there. Would you mind telling me what chapter/section the idea of the great lie is in so I can reread that portion?
This is what Wikipaedia says about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
The source of Big Lie technique is this passage, taken from Chapter 10 of James Murphy’s translation of Mein Kampf:
(more at the link above)
Mr. Harkin's comment does not exist. It was Unthought by Harkin as a good, liberal, Newthinker, and so it was never thought, is invalid, void, and meaningless, does not exist, and is not a suitable or timely topic for discussion.
On the other hand, Republicans and conservatives are morons and STOOPID.
The law is what Obama says it is...
"The laws of England are in my mouth." -- Shakespeare (?)
Letting Obama OR any President get away with this crap is a mistake... a big mistake...
I agree with some of what you say, specifically the letters and diaries of the soldiers.
But I feel that most Northern soldiers were simply repeating a political platitude.
When the War began, half of all Americans had lived their entire lives within 100 miles of their birth place.
Hard to believe that very many of them had a realistic understanding of a “Union.”
Perhaps they were motivated by some sense of an “American Empire” expanding to the Pacific, but an inviolate Union with the Southern States, that’s very hard for me to believe.
Bottom line for me - slavery was the central issue of the War.
Take out slavery, there is no secession.
Take out slavery, there is no galvanizing reason to invade the South.
yup, that's where i got it from, thank you...
True, but still no excuse. There is no "Noble Cause" clause in the Constitution and I'd wager the Founding Fathers probably considered and rejected something like it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.