Posted on 11/16/2009 7:03:44 AM PST by opentalk
The Obama Administration is developing a new socialist constitution for America to replace the original Constitution written by our Founders. Every single one of these huge bills being rammed through congress is simply another article of the Obama constitution which allows no amendments by Republicans.
The people need to understand that these huge 1000 to 2000 page bills - the 111 Congress agenda - are all parts of one master blueprint for a new socialist government. The master plan has been split up into different component pieces so that the people won’t notice how they will all fit back together until after they become law.
In a building blueprint for example, you have a page for the foundation, a page for the framework, a page for the plumbing, a page for the electrical system, etc. It doesn’t become a building until all of the drawings and diagrams are built and integrated together.
It seems that everyone wants to focus on the details of the Healthcare bill, the Cap & Trade bill, the Stimulus bill, and others that have and will come up. We want to pick apart each bill and say “you can’t have this in there” and “you can’t have that in there,” while overlooking the larger picture. Each bill is simply one page in the overall plan to redesign America into a socialist state.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
We need to stop bickering over the details in each of these bills in congress and see the larger picture. We need to stop trying to add amendments and repealing others to find some sort of compromise that will allow a bill to pass. This is the most frightening thing that could happen in congress.
No part of this blueprint should be allowed to pass through congress and find its way to the Resolute desk. It’s already too late to stop the Stimulus Bill which was one page of the blueprint. But 85% of that money has yet to be spent and can still be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. Constitution saw the BSOD decades ago.
The Supreme Court is supposed to have a say in which pieces of legislation are unconstitutional. I would suggest that the fight should not be in the Legislative branch, but in the Judicial branch.
Like the partial repeal of the First Amendment via "McCain-Feingold"?
I wouldn't put a whole lot of eggs in that basket.
Well, yeah. I’ve got three baskets: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. I’m prepared to use whichever basket seems best. But right now, all my baskets kinda suck.
This part of the story would cause any potential terrorist to think again:
“Khalid Sheik Mohammed wants to die as a martyr. Little does he suspect that among his 72 virgins will likely be Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Helen Thomas. “
This part of the story would cause any potential terrorist to think again:
“Khalid Sheik Mohammed wants to die as a martyr. Little does he suspect that among his 72 virgins will likely be Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Helen Thomas. “
Has our civics training really sunk this low in this country? I still can’t believe I read posts like yours daily on FR. The House of Reps is EXACTLY where these debates are supposed to take place. The Supreme Court is tyranny under your assertion (don’t believe me? Read the Federalist Papers on the subject). Our Founders understood that principle. However, we’ve gotten so used to the left’s propaganda, even conservatives see the Court as above us all telling us right from wrong! No. We are the masters of our government through our elected representatives... we tell them what is right and what is wrong.
The key is to tie up implementation of those unconstitutional mandates and laws until a regime change can take place.
With elections of our own people, not of the “party” the real change will be implemented which kicks out the party way of doing business that is first, good for the party, and secondary to what is good for the people.
Two thousand pages of law, regardless of what the stated intentions are, cannot contain protections of personal freedom and liberty. Any politician alluding otherwise is a flat out liar. Deceptions are contrary to the so called transparency this Marxist administration promised during the campaign..
If in 1973 Roe V Wade didn’t convince us that the courts are a law unto themselves, nothing will. They are not the arbiters of right and wrong.
"Global socialism can only succeed if nations are willing to unite under a one world government. That means we are not allowed to have enemies, which is why Obama is making nice with Islam and Islamic terrorists. If the Obama can convince them that he is not George Bush, then maybe they will like us. I realize it is insane thinking, but it is the Obama’s thinking."
With elections of our own people, not of the “party”
I agree, the party system is infected.
I wasn't trying to blaspheme our system of government. I recognize that the legislative branch is where the debate is supposed to take place. But, given the current batch of elected officials, and the current occupant of the White House, I can well imagine that something unconstitutional may be forthcoming.
I'm not proposing that we give up on the legislative process, and I'm not proposing that the judicial branch be used to force our will upon the republic. But I am suggesting that the Court has historically been expected to play a role in blocking unconstitutional laws.
It might be in our interests to look down the road and consider a Plan B, if the Democrats pass a law telling us what we must buy. They should not be able to pass just any old law they wish. They should not be allowed to ignore the Constitution. Who could stop them? The Supreme Court. That's all I'm saying.
Unfortunately, that fight can't begin until the legislation is signed into law, and its operation has begun to the point where it generates a grievance that can be litigated.
Once that happens, the prospects for regaining and preserving our liberty become less likely by orders of magnitude.
Look at McCain-Feingold, a blatent violation of constitutionally protected free speech.
Bush should have vetoed it on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, but took the position that he would just sign it and then let the Supreme Court declare it so.
Well, the Supreme Court didn't declare it so. And so now it is law.
The fight over the constitutionality of health care, or ANY other law, needs to begin in the legislature.
Read your Constitution again... if the Dems want to play power politics, they can take Healthcare out of the Court’s jurisdiction.
YES!
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.