Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Obama Conquer the Supreme Court
Townhall.com ^ | April 8, 2012 | Austin Hill

Posted on 04/08/2012 8:08:08 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: Kaslin

It’s not his to conquer.

The three braches of government are idependent of one another. Guess he doesn’t know that.


41 posted on 04/08/2012 6:09:58 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
It has happened many times in our hemisphere by tinhorn dictators, why not at least once in the 250 years of the United States?

Obama drips with Caesarism, which is reduced in American usage to a throwaway reference to Spengler, but Spengler meant a lot by it, and anyone who's read Roman history knows exactly what he is talking about. The elements of the Roman Revolution are identifiable already in ours, even if they aren't as stinkingly developed. A legislature, for instance, peopled by millionaires, and controlled by them and by corrupt-and-corrupting special interests with a vested interest in controlling outcomes in an ossified legislative process in which unconstitutional procedures (continuing resolutions, "reconciliation") are increasingly used. That, for one.

Obama brings the element of the adventurous, ambitious scofflaw, constantly inventing and directing new pressures against existing groups and institutions to work not his singular will, but a collective factional will, in this case the neo-Stalinists' who are working with Obama as his kitchen cabinet and executive reports.

42 posted on 04/08/2012 7:34:15 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2
(Lewis in your cited source, quoting Madison)
"Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.

Notice that in the "New Deal" and "Great Society", both Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson promoted precisely the idea of "a compact between the Govt. & the people" -- thereby promoting FDR and LBJ to the status of equals of the People, and counterparties to a "compact", rather than servants of the People.

There's a con man on every street corner, and in politics they mob you, all spraying your face and offering to squeegee it dry for you -- with their hands in your pocket, or on your wife's honor.

43 posted on 04/08/2012 7:47:39 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
RobbyS, it is likely that there is much more significance to the requirement for natural born citizens than a concern for ‘foreign princes,” though your point is well taken. Titles were abolished, but the inheritance of allegiance is impossible to completely remove. Even immigrants and exiles from the USSR and Cuba have left a part of themselves to come here. In the eighteenth century we were all, at one time, subjects of the Crown. After we had won our independence on the battlefield there was no certain way to ascertain that a child of an alien didn't hold a secret allegiance to the nation of his parent. That is the reason for the structure of the ‘grandfather clause.” In 1787 citizen who had resided in America for fourteen years was here three years before the Declaration of Independence.

Hamilton fought nobly in the revolution, and was Washington's most important officer, Secretary of the Treasury, when Washington accepted the presidency. Hamilton was very familiar with the common-law upon which our republic was based, and shared his judgments with Washington in voluminous letters. In one such letter, from 1790, Hamilton commented: “But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions.” Hamilton, unlike Obama, depended upon “nature's law and Law of Nations” to support most of his decisions. In that respect alone, Hamilton is the antithesis of Obama. Open disagreement comes with the territory. In a republic, different opinions are expected. The Constitution established the ground rules, a doctrine of constraints on government, the opposite of Obama. And Hamilton, in an early draft, required a ‘citizen’ president, made no objection to John Jay and Washington's further constraint, probably taken, as noted by founder John Marshall, directly from Vattel.

From what I've read about Hamilton, the abandonment of his possibly Jewish mother in St. Croix by the black sheep of a titled Scottish family, and the terrible treatment of slaves , and of most not from Britain's privileged classes generated little or no allegiance for the British Colony, again, recalling that most everyone in pre-revolutionary America was a British colonial. Obama, on the other hand, if we believe Bill Ayers' biography of Barrack, ideolized his absent father, whose allegiance was to some flavor of Islamic Marxism. Hamilton and Obama are on opposite ends of spectrum from freedom of the individual to a central oligarchy built around socialism. (I would appreciate a reference to a better biography than the Ron Chernow Volume, which seems preocupied with Hamiltion’s possible bisexual activities, and reads like a potential montion picture script, causing our family put it down about half way through. A briographer familiar with legal history would help.)

44 posted on 04/08/2012 10:32:29 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Worse still, it seems that very few Americans recognize the President’s behaviour is problematic.”

Mr. Maher, on his TV show, said it best; something to the effect that it should be done in this country the way it’s done in China.

His attitude reflects the opinions and “feelings” of many in the electorate who think Mr. Obama loves and cares for them.

They’re willing to forego the Constitution in order for him to take care of them.

(President Obama in 2013, 55 percent to 45 percent.)

IMHO


45 posted on 04/09/2012 5:22:20 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Worse still, it seems that very few Americans recognize the President’s behaviour is problematic.”

Mr. Maher, on his TV show, said it best; something to the effect that it should be done in this country the way it’s done in China.

His attitude reflects the opinions and “feelings” of many in the electorate who think Mr. Obama loves and cares for them.

They’re willing to forego the Constitution in order for him to take care of them.

(President Obama in 2013, 55 percent to 45 percent.)

IMHO


46 posted on 04/09/2012 5:25:42 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; justiceseeker93; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ...

Thanks Clintonfatigued and justiceseeker93.


47 posted on 04/09/2012 8:38:12 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson