Yeah, well, after he's re-elected, he'll have more flexibility to explore more options.
And, of course, he'll have those 450 million rounds of ammo at his disposal to help keep those options open.
FDR got them to come to heel.
Duck...?
It might turn out the other way around, if he tries.
Just saying.
He’s starting to get pretty obvious about things.
speaks to the relative strengths of both our U.S. Constitution itself...
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The Constitution is only as strong as the good will and fundamental honesty of the American people.
The 2008 Florida recount did it for me. It was then that I realized that Democrats were not people of good will or honesty. After this I could never again have a Democrat for a friend. They were either too evil or too stupid to be a friend.
And... At the beginning of the article I thought the author was describing Andrew Jackson.
The only way anyone can ‘conquer’ the Supreme Court is to have at least 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment to the Consitution. Even then, the amendment can be misinterpreted ala the Commerce Clause.....
Credit must also be given to the strength of our military, which without firing a shot keeps in check the dreams of dictator wannabes like Barky. He's working to destroy our military so he can proceed but he doesn't have enough time.
Obama would not have done this if he thought that Obamacare was going to be upheld. The good news is that he seems to be backing down.
A more important point is that whoever is elected President in 2012 will be making Supreme Court appointments. Four of the justices will be over 70 y/o and two of them will be from the conservative, Constitutionalist faction.
The writer's concluding premise seems to be that, unlike 1937, citizens of 2012 might be open to a frontal attack on what the Framers of the Constitution believed to be an essential branch of their government--the Supreme Court.
In order to understand why that might be so, we might review how so-called "progressives" have worked diligently over the past several decades, since 1937, to "change" "the People's" concept of their Constitution. Before this president, or anyone else, attempts such an attack on the Founders' chosen branch for judicial review, citizens might want to examine the danger to their freedom such a dictatorial position presents.
A commonly-used ruse has been deliberate misrepresentations by prominent jurists and law school professors of the Constitution's own provisions for amendment contained in Article V.
This "People's" Constitution--intended to be the people's "chain" (Jefferson) to bind representatives in government--never was intended to be "changed" except by a laborious process involving "the People" themselves.
Using the phrase "a living constitution," "progressives" superimpose their own wishes by claiming, as now-Justicee Sotamayor did at Duke, that "appeals courts are where policy is made," or that Her thinking likely stems from having been schooled in the "living constitution" theory.
A 1980's essay by Dr. Walter Bern is quoted, with permission below. Dr. Bern recounts the history of the "living constitution" idea and exposes some of the myths and fallacies associated with it, while, at the same time, citing the Founders' insistence upon the Constitution's own prescribed method of amendment requiring "the People's" assent and participation.
|
||||||
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and independent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example. The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed. Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:
Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America." In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.
The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved. The Enduring American ConstitutionNow, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived. In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the constitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional government. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein. Treating The Constitution As
|
There is no question about it. If he wins a second term he will negate the Supreme Court, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the freedoms of all (free at this time) Americans.
Up to now, the GOP has ALLOWED all to happen due to their timid and politically correct ways.
The “glue” that will seal the papers on our country’s demise will be the selection for Romney to represent the Republicans and will ensure the safety of Obama’s reelection.
If, by sheer accident, Romney wins, we will have Obama “light” and the Democrats will rule with impunity for the next 4 years.
It’s a lose-lose situation for the American patriots and conservatives, all being staunch supporters of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It’s not his to conquer.
The three braches of government are idependent of one another. Guess he doesn’t know that.
“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
“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