“Sadly, most of the country failed Constitution 101...”
They don’t even know what the document is let alone show up for the test.
90% of the Federal Government is unconstitutional. You think a silly backbencher amendment is going to stop them?
Hell, Bush signed CFR!
there's nothing stopping the people from using the Constitution to clean up the federal government.
Well, we kind of thought Sarah Palin would help us do that. Without any elected representatives to help, how can this be accomplished?
How quaint your reference to the Constitution. That scrap of paper is utterly irrelevant.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: …
You’re talking about a president elect and congress that don’t care a spit about the Constitution other then the clauses that got them elected in the first place. And even then they really don’t care because Hussein hasn’t proven he is even legally able to hold the office.
But they'll do it anyways.
Ah heck you don’t think that Constitution thingy is going to stand in the way of executive orders, do you?
freedom of speech... going
gun rights....going
POTUS, can run for 3rd term... yep
You’d have to do a complete legal review of all court cases dealing with this. Perhaps the “general welfare” term has been interpreted to mean something that’s not readily apparent to you know.
Hire a lawyer to do the research.
Barry X will “break free” from the “constraints” of the Constitution. It was written by a bunch of dead white guys anyway.
| NUMBER: | 1798 |
| AUTHOR: | Daniel Webster (1782–1852) |
| QUOTATION: | The power to tax is the power to destroy. |
| ATTRIBUTION: | This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819). In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431). |
Look, even Thomas Jefferson in his Sixth Annual Message or State of the Union speech called for a specific Constitutional Amendment to create a Department of Education,
“I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.
The present consideration of a national establishment for education particularly is rendered proper by this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition...”
Today he`d be laughed at as some kinda kook nutjob and locked up.
Never stopped 'em before.
Obama knows the original intent (limited enumerated federal powers and negative rights) of the founders quite well and better than most, if not all, the members of Congress.
He disagrees with that original intent, and sees it as a “tragic flaw”.
Are you a rich and philanthropic lawyer, and will you be there to defend us when we adopt an MLK approach and refuse to obey laws which clearly violate that constitutional clause (the 10th Amendment)? Gosh I hope so!
Half the stuff commonly thought to be the law today violates the 10th Amendment, but no one listens, and all who disobey those fake laws are tarred and feathered on the evening news (the stocks of our time) just as badly as real lawbreakers.
It will do no good for us to sit and write there in the Birmingham Jail unless someone is willing to sue in a visible and public manner on our behalf to get us out.
I have in my possession a copy of one letter I wrote Texas Gov. George Bush asking him to observe the 10th amendment and not to throw in with a pack of other governors who were advocating that the federal government begin to take certain actions prohibited under the tenth amendment.
It did no good and did not persuade him. He joined the idiots. Instead I received the Governor’s letter of reply in which he states, in essence, that since he likes illegal idea he and his cronies are advocating, he just gonna ignore the tenth and do what he wants. So it’s no surprise to me what we got for a president, a populist guy, a nice guy I personally like, a guy good on a few conservative issues, but a guy who refused to follow the Texas Party Platform at all, and one who undercut us on basic principles all the time.
McCain? Same. He never really heard of the 10th amendment either. Or the 9th.
So if even the common everyday RINOs we so often are stuck with are CLUELESS about observing the restrictions in the US Constitution, why would anyone think we can force the democrats to observe them? Not likely!
I write the above, though, mainly to show the difficulty of the task. I actually think that we SHOULD still try to force our government to address the issue—although we should have very high expectations of their cooperation. We will have to force both sides of the isle, though. And we need to nominate and elect NO RINOS and only those who really will stick to our constitution, limited government, and Orthodox Americanism.
5 Supreme Court justices in the bag and the Constitution need not apply.
Congress and the executive have been doing UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS FOR DECADES
. . . MORE AND MORE . . . MORE AND MORE OUTRAGEOUSLY . . .
MORE AND MORE HORRIFICALLY . . .
Obamao will not lead a RETRENCHMENT of that compulsion.