Obama's Dangerous Ignorance ( lack of Knowledge about Constitution is Scary)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021208/content/01125113.guest.html ^

[newbie2008]

"Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" Obama's answer: "No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants." Memo to Obama: It is not the Bush administration's position. The Supreme Court held in 2004 -- this is the famous case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants. Now, I just have to think here -- I don't know what to think. He's either ignorant or he's saying something far more dangerous. If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this -- and ignorance.

Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.

[BunkDetector]

my pleasure!

[philetus]

you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Aren’t you?”

Why would you post something as stupid as:Cool. And I need a Photoshop of you boinking a 10 year old boy.”?

[SeeSalt]

Obama's Dangerous Ignorance ( lack of Knowledge about Constitution is Scary)

I think his perception is scary too. A brain of a teen loaded with cocaine is not function appropriately in the adult life.

[BunkDetector]

OK, I ‘splain.
Veni, Vidi, Vici (odd name, isn’t it?)said he needed a Photoshop of Obama in front of a Cuban/Che Guevara flag. In other words, he wanted someone to MANUFACTURE a FICTIONAL photo of Obama to bring disrepute to and embarrass Obama.

SO, I sarcastically asked if someone could/would make up a FICTIONAL photo to embarrass him (Veni, Vidi,Vici) thus demonstrating the unfairness and ...well...you get it now...

[BunkDetector]

for sure.
Did he graduate from high school?
Did you?

[SoCal Pubbie]

“If he is saying that he’s not bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law”

In fairness, doesn’t the Supreme Court ruling say that the President MAY detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants, not that he MUST? I’m no Obama supporter, but I would say that a decision to reverse Bush's policy might be foolish, even dangerous, but it is not ignoring the Court.

[Salvation]

bump for later.

[driftless2]

"silliness"

So lawyers can't make stupid statements? My lawyer daughter-in-law devoutly believed that Bush was going to draft her and send her to Iraq. Lib lawyers say stupid things all the time.

[Caipirabob]

Obama was Law Review in his class at Harvard Law.

If he's so smart, why's he a liberal, unless he's totally evil?

Oh...

[rollo tomasi]

[The President] shall have power, by and witht he advice and consent of the Senate. to make treaties, provided two therds of the Senators present concur;" Article II, Section 2., Paragraph 2.

What does this have to do with abolishing treaties?

McKinley terminated the 1850 treaty with Switzerland by his lonesome. When Carter terminated the treaty with Taiwan by his lonesome it was challenged by Congress, taken to court, was deemed sufficient, brought to the USSC and was then vacated. Obama must be confused, yes?

[philetus]

I got it the first time.I just think your example was a poor choice.

[rollo tomasi]

Obama was Law Review in his class at Harvard Law

Obama is one slick and smart cat but lacks the wisdom of those dead white guys who actually wrote the Constitution. Constitution scholars/lawyers are trained to pimp and twist the document not actually follow the advice of again, those dead white guys who actually wrote the darn thing (Side note: Federalist Papers).

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, (Side note: Federalist Papers and all the debate plus intentions of Amendments post Bill of Rights)

[BunkDetector]

‘...but lacks the wisdom of those dead white guys who actually wrote the constitution.”

Well, yeah, doesn’t everyone?
You set a pretty high bar for him.

[BunkDetector]

OK

[King of Florida]

Quote from U.S. Supreme Court Decision!

Hardly. First, that's the syllabus, which, as the disclaimer that has been at the top of Court syllabi since what seems like time immemorial states, "constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader."

Second, and to make matters worse, you're quoting from the syllabus's summary of the holding of the Fourth Circuit below, not from any summary of what the Court itself held.

Hamdi was a complicated opinion from a fractured Court and does not lend itself to Rush's kind of sound bite showmanship. It was a plurality opinion by O'Connor. In a nutshell, the only holding that a majority of the Court joined in on was that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to hold a U.S. citizen nonenemy combatant indefinitely without providing a "meaningful opportunity" to go before a neutral decisionmaker or judge and challenge his detention.

Rush mischaracterizes the holding, and I would bet for entertainment's sake he mischaracterized what Obama said. Plus Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review and then worked for a civil rights firm in Chicago. Rush is qualified to interpret Supreme Court holdings how?

[CodeToad]

As opposed to McCain who violated the First Amendment all in the name of politics?? McCain–Feingold Act.

[BunkDetector]

Well, you may be right, Bob. Lotsa people around speculate Obie is the antiChrist. Then again, lotsa people speculate that McCain is the Manchurian candidate. Interesting year, 2008!

Your about page is great! You have an interesting life. Do you get to go to Brazil? I’ve never been but I’m a big fan of Brazilian music. I like the older singers, Gal Costa, Cauby Peixoto, Doris Monteiro but my favorite is Jane Duboc. If you like Brazilian music, check out Paraiso, an album she did with Stan Getz. “Wave” in particular. I know, everyone records “Wave” but it’s a wonderful song and this is a fabulous performance.
Happy caipira,
BD

[Sudetenland]

It would be nice if you read the message to which I responded and the follow up responses before you comment.

Failure to do so leads you to making a fool of yourself by making arguments against statements which were not made.

When Rush said that the Senate doesn't "ratify" treaties, he was patently and demonstrably wrong. I said nothing about "abolishing treaties."

[VeniVidiVici]

Thanks, Adammon! Now, I believe bunkdetector wants one of adults boinking children. Strange what people think about at one in the morning when they've had a bit much, eh?

Now to take this PChop you did for me and send it to the papers! I'm sure everyone will believe it's true!