Statistics: Posted by BOID — Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:23 am
Really?
Congressional approval for waging war was another way the founders made sure the president was kept in check (they were tired of the heavy handed tactics of kings, which sounds exactly like what Obama and Romney want). That's all the "context" I need. Context unfortunately at this point is subjective, I've got some very liberal associates who will twist the constitution with plenty of context. I think it was a mistake for Obama to dabble in the middle east without any approval whatsoever, and I'll criticize Romney if he does the same.
My point is that while Romney is a step in the right direction, he is not going to be able to deliver America from the path they've started down and I'm afraid he won't honor the constitution any more than other recent presidents. It will take a monumental shift in the house and senate towards sound constitutional decisions. Those types of decisions haven't been made by either political party for decades. America's house and senate seats need to be full of people who are willing to stand up to people like Barack Obama, Janet Napalatino, Orrin Hatch, HArry Reid, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and anyone else who believes they are above the guidelines established in the constitution.
Americans have justified this departure from sound policies because they've been convinced they need the government to take care of them from some rogue nation like Iran, or a flu epidemic, or gun loving religious zealots who invariably are going to take over. Some no longer want freedom, instead, they favor a babysitter who will make all their decisions for them and in turn force others to depend on the government as well.
It's an extremely slippery slope when the president doesn't believe he needs to go through the checks and balances that were set up when our country was founded.
tww, honest question. Could you explain the context you are speaking of?
Statistics: Posted by BroncoBot — Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:13 pm
Statistics: Posted by tww — Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:49 am
Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.
Statistics: Posted by Ddawg — Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:00 pm
Statistics: Posted by BroncoBot — Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Let me give you proof of what jvq was saying.Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.
Statistics: Posted by tww — Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:16 pm
Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.
Statistics: Posted by ABYUFAN — Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:23 am
Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.
Statistics: Posted by BroncoBot — Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:23 am
Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.
Statistics: Posted by tww — Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:24 pm