Skip to comments.Beck says "Lets Argue the Constitution"
Posted on 01/04/2010 1:40:16 PM PST by Spaulding
So why don't we go after the things that are provable, after the things that actually you need to stop right now. And if you want to argue, you want to argue, then let's argue based in fact, based on things that are provable and true. And what do you say? Do you want to argue the Constitution? Good. Let's show the number of people in congress and in the Senate that don't even read the Constitution. Can't tell you right now if healthcare is even in the Constitution. Let's talk to the scholars. Let's talk to the average Joe that understands this isn't in the Constitution. Let's argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America, why don't we argue the constitutionality of a little known thing called czars. And the power that these people have. Back in a minute.
(Excerpt) Read more at glennbeck.com ...
Arguing the Healthcare is not in the Constitution is a good idea to defeat Obama Care and Abolish Medicare.
I see they are still stuck on let’s not talk about Obama is playing games.
“Let’s talk to the scholars. Let’s talk to the average Joe that understands this isn’t in the Constitution. Let’s argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America,”
I like Beck . . . really I do . . . but the problem of politicians in Washington DC disregarding those portions of it that do not dovetail with their agenda is not going to be solved by further ignoring portions of the constitution. Let Lincoln say it is not a suicide pact . . . I say it is not a cafeteria plan, you must take it all and there are some very real stipulations set forward about who can and who cannot be a US President.
From Beck’s newsletter:
Let me, let me show you Senator Harkin, a talk he gave on healthcare that if this doesn’t show you that everything we have told you and warned you about and you’ve been warning all your friends about is absolutely correct, I don’t know what is
Excerpt from Glenn’s conclusions:
Now, I would love to hear from somebody a serious conversation, how that’s not accurate. How what I just said to you is some sort of conspiracy. When you have a senator who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution and yet he doesn’t even seem to understand the Constitution. When you have a senator who believes that he has the power to create rights wholesale and then not only create the right but have it that there are different kinds of rights, there are starter rights that later transform into new rights, bigger rights, more powerful rights. Whoa. Whoa. That’s quite a different concept than our founders had.
Beck being Beck here. It’s kind of the same argument he made that John McCain would be worse than Zer0. Not that McLame would do all this crap so quickly, instead he’d do it in a measured way so people would be lulled to sleep. The end result is the same. In the case of birthers (and I’m one of them) it ends up being a distraction because its unprovable. Instead lets argue about the constitutionality of this nonsense being forced on us.
The problem is that some birthers have destroyed the issue but using it to launch vendettas. Its done and its over because some birthers have done it to themseves.
Glenn should do a series of debates with Obama’s teleprompter. I think this would be 1) hilarious, 2) informative, and 3) set the Obama White House off so much that Glenn's Red Phone would be ringing off the hook.
That's a great idea! Did you email Beck suggesting he do this?
It needs to refocus on congress and stop playing for attention.
Whatever the case may be, nothing changes the FACT that Obama has never proven or been asked to prove to any authority that he is eligible for the job.
And I, for one, most certainly DO NOT TAKE HIS ****ING word for it.
Beck’s dismissal of the birthers today was disappointing. He just mocked. He didn’t address the salient points of the argument.
For example, he said oh SOMEHOW, they got a birth announcement in the Hawaii paper, somehow KNOWING they were going to sneak in a president 40 years later. . .
Of course that has not been alleged. The habit of posting birth announcements in the Hawaii paper did not require any presidential aspirations or conspiracy. No one ever said it did. As we all know, anyone can place a notice, for any reason, with no proof. I don’t think Obama’s mom was planning to run him for president. I don’t think anyone who questions his citizenship does.
So Beck ignored the real arguments, rather than simply disagreeing with them. He also took the cowardly way out of making fun of the birthers, rather than the more mature way of explaining factually why he disagrees with them.
I am very disappointed in him. His character was shown to be very poor today.
Our founders were ruled from Europe, and knew European law and history. When they determined to create a new form of government based upon laws and not inheritance, they employed a very old idea, the foundation then of French citizenship, the allegiance of parents - jus sanguinis - in addition to requiring a property stake - born in the country - jus soli. They did their best to insure that the commander in chief and president was a strong believer in our form of government, with no foreign entanglements.
No provision, no amendment, no supreme court case contravenes the John Marshall statement - our common law according to Alexander Hamilton. Our representatives have considered amending Article II 24 times since 1789. To change our form of government to a pure democracy, as Beck and others suggest - we've had an election, Congress has approved, and Roberts has presided over the oath - would mean the end of freedom. Our law, at this point, remains based upon our Constitution. Obama’s people know very well that allegiance to our principles is weak for citizens who have lived a protected life, and no longer understand the reasoning behind those principles.
Don't expect citizens to read Putendorf or Grotius or Vattel, but observe the Reuters coverage of Obama campaigning for Odinga in 2006. Obama is pursuing “Dreams from my Father.” Odinga, as most of us know, is an East German Educated Marxist, with Muslim family, part of whose campaign was based upon converting Christian Kenya to Sharia law. Our founders anticipated the danger posed by someone who doesn't accept the limitations our Constitution imposes upon government, and required that a president's parents be believers.
These are facts. The Constitution is concrete on the point. Birth certificates are not facts. I wish they were in evidence, but it doesn't matter. Being called a “Birther” is not nearly the worst than can happen to us. And remember, when it was convenient, in 2008, every Democrat and every Republican Senator, along with Michael Chertoff, signed Senate Resolution 511 making John McCain a natural born citizen because both of his parents were citizens when he was born.
Why do these radio people so quickly turn on the eligibility issue as exclusively the "Birther" issue? The Birth Certificate issue is a trap, a red herring; fool's bait. Team Obama has played the patriotic, but naive, like a violin.
You want to read Obama's Birth Certificate? Hire a lawyer in Honolulu and sue the State of Hawaii.
The reason that some of these radio people turn on the “birther” issue is because they are afraid of being called semi-literate former disc jockey’s who never made it through high school. IMHO either the Constitution means something or it does not. Trap or no the document must be preserved and implemented in entirety. And if we keep up this stance of discarding those bits that, a professed belief in, make us appear “naive” then how much longer will it be before discussions such as this have been deemed similarly “naive” and prohibited because a devotion to the 1st Amendment has as well fallen into general disfavor amongst our political and cultural elites.
It’s been done before.
Goebells did this to an opponent in the thirties. The other guy wasn’t there so Goebells used a recording of his speech and would pause it and pick it apart. It was a resounding success back then.
If it were tried today, there would be so many accusations of Nazi tactics that it would backfire.
A panel could wear masks, and be prepared with the words of a justice. Have Ann Coulter argue for Obama, against all the founders. Boy would that get ratings, but might be uncomfortable for Ann, whom I generally respect. I'll bet there are many in academia and the profession sitting on the sidelines who now, seeing the Obama credit line dwindle, might lend their knowledge and reputations to support the Constitution.
Instead of “Where is the birth certificate” the road signs should have read “Born in the country to parents who are its citizens?”
The Kerchner case is wending its way toward the supreme court. The Chrysler Dealer cases have been initiated. To preserve our freedoms, the public should understand the issues being raised. They are obscure, but as we see the concrete danger of a U.S. Army officer whose allegiance was never consistent with our constitutional protections, a Muslim before a citizen, as Obama said of himself in his first book, more citizens are likely to understand why Washington and Jay decided to require natural born citizenship as a qualification to being president.
We have all seen the travesty of auto dealer's survival becoming dependent upon their political contributions. Those cases are now being prosecuted, by Donofrio and Pidgeon. That is connected to the illegitimacy of Obama’s presidency because without respect for adherence to the constitution, those cases will be settled the Chicago way, or the Soros way.
Appuzo, arguing for the constitution, a small time patriot, would fit the Beck appeal to traditional values. I think Appuzo could handle a slick government attorney because he has truth on his side, is seasoned enough to resist the distractions, and, unlike many attorneys, has had the chance to become really expert. You know Anita Dunn's husband has a world-class team following the Kerchner/Apuzzo case.
Have Appuzo or Donofrio defend the founders. It might not be a funny show, but Beck presented a serious special on eugenics. How about a serious special on citizenship? Goodness know, it is a serious issue.
I fully agree that the concealment of all legal documents is insufferable. But there don't appear to be statutes - yet - requiring that we know more than the media wanted to present about a presidential candidate. Only two states even required a written certification by the party of a candidate's eligibility, and that battle appears stymied. So let's be disciplined and focus on what we know, because the candidate told us, about Obama’s qualifications. A British Kenyan father absolutely disqualifies Obama from being president. His authority is moot.
I sent it to his Producer thinking Glenn gets so much email, mine would get filtered out.
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.