Posted on 07/29/2013 1:38:20 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Obama Suggests Only Lawyers Understand the Constitution July 29, 2013 - 2:28 PM By Elizabeth Harrington
(CNSNews.com) --President Obama suggested in an interview with the New York Times that was published on Saturday that you need to be a lawyer to understand the U.S. Constitution.
The president made the suggestion when talking about members of Congress who have argued he does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally suspend enforcement of parts of the Obamacare law.
The Times asked Obama if he “consulted” with his lawyer when making the decision to suspend the employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 employees to buy them health insurance, and which was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1, 2014.
“[I]f you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security,” Obama said.
“And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case,” Obama added. “But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret.”
“But, ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions--very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers,” the president said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
And have a few forgers at the ready to doctor my personal documents.
Yes.
And the 14th Amendment requires all the rest of us to be equally protected from the perjury, election fraud, and extortion he committed in order to win the electoral vote, which is just one of the 3 Constitutional prerequisites for “acting as President. The other 2 are to qualify (which he knows he doesn’t) and to take the oath of office (which he can’t do without breaking it, since he knows he is Constitutionally ineligible).
Hopefully those Congressmen who love the US and her Constitution (if there are any) will give up on beating around the bush and just go right to the heart of Obama’s unconstitutionality. In addition to having his ineligibility exposed, he needs to be charged with all the above crimes, as well as the crime of treason - as evidenced by his usurpation of the Presidency, the ways he has trashed the US Constitution rather than keeping his oath to defend and protect it, and the material aid he has CONSTANTLY been given to the sworn enemies of the USA.
Here what the 9th Amendment warms us about you and your lawyers.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
While on your way of violating the 9th, you have violated the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps Obama has never read the opinion in Clinton v. City of New York [the Line Item Veto]. Clinton lost ...
BTW: It was written by that Lion of Conservatism, Justice John Paul Stevens:
"... In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. "Repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983). There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes. Both Article I and Article II assign responsibilities to the President that directly relate to the lawmaking process, but neither addresses the issue presented by these cases. The President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient . . . ." Art. II, Section 3. Thus, he may initiate and influence legislative proposals. 27 Moreover, after a bill has passed both Houses of Congress, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President. If he approves it, "he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it." Art. I, Section 7, cl. 2. 28"
"... There are important differences between the President's "return" of a bill pursuant to Article I, Section 7, and the exercise of the President's cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes."
"... The Line Item Veto Act authorizes the President himself to effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy reasons, without observing the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7. The fact that Congress intended such a result is of no moment. Although Congress presumably anticipated that the President might cancel some of the items in the Balanced Budget Act and in the Taxpayer Relief Act, Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution."
"... If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may "become a law," such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Cf. U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 837 (1995)."
Every decent informed citizen should consider themselves a Constitutional lawyer.
And this continuing spewing of holier-than-thou crap comes from a pinhead who maybe didn’t attend many of whatever classes he had, by his own admission took hard drugs, had to give up his legal license...and who was (at best) some sort of minor lecturer in constitutional law. This fraud is beyond disgusting. His arrogance may land him in prison yet. One can hope...
Most lawyers never read the Constitution and in most law schools it is not taught.
The Founders represented men of learning including some lawyers. It is men of learning that Obama was never taught about or apparently never cared to emulate. Of course he is not the only one and that is part of the problems in the USA today going from local politicians to National level.
What would you expect coming from odumbo the “constitutional lawyer”.
i’d suggest more non-lawyers in this country understand the constitution than lawyers do.
I’m out now. MS in Communications and a CGSC grad.
No, I think Obama has a point. The Constitution apparently allows abortion, but I’m too dumb to be able to figure where it says that.
The Constitution apparently allows abortion, but I’m too dumb to be able to figure where it says that.
________________________________________________
You silly
Its in the Privacy Amendment...
Ah, that explains it, I forgot to check the fine print.
A Nicolaitan president?
Our constitution is intended to be a plain language document. There is nothing tricky in it.
Thanks Seizethecarp.
I am more pissed off than you!!!! About non-stop Obama BS!!
Bless his half white butt.
We have the comfort of knowing that we are not alone in this nightmare.
LLS
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.