Obama--Eating his cake and having it too.

[snoscythe]

In selling Obamacare to the American people, Obama and the left promised voters that it was funded by a penalty, not a tax. When it got to the Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued as their third argument that it was a tax and a valid exercise of the taxing power. SCOTUS upheld it under Congress' ability to tax. The very next day, the Obama campaign tells the media "It's a penalty--it's always been a penalty and it's never been a tax. Don't listen to what the other side is selling."

What's more troubling is the double-standard Obama and the DOJ are looking for regarding executive privilege. Here's an informative read about the position the DOJ and Eric Holder have taken about the scope of executive privilege assertions in their lawsuit against the Texas voter ID law, and how those positions are completely at odds with the assertion of the same privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Texas-Pols" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ddawg]

Excellent article. Good post. Both Obama and Holder are frauds and deceitful. Nov. can not come soon enough. Out with da Bums!!!

[jvquarterback]

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.

[ABYUFAN]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

[jvquarterback]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

[scott715]

I'm in DC for the week. The Obamba supporters are organizing. I have seen very little for romney so far. Did get to talk to a few supporters, or at least I assume supporters. I read that BO has $100M in the bank while MR has $17M. I hope those are fairly old numbers. Mitt raised $100M in June, which is an all time high for him.

[tww]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

[BroncoBot]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

Let me give you proof of what jvq was saying.

" I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.

All those actions must be on the table. "

That's blatant disregard for the constitution. This is the problem with our government, no one believes in the constitution anymore.

I guess I'm just one of those homeland "liberty loving" terrorists out there.

[ABYUFAN]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

WOW! I WAS going to vote for Mitt, now I definately won't! My vote was changed by a quarterback.. a Junior Varsity Quarterback no less!

[tww]

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.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

Let me give you proof of what jvq was saying.

" I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.

All those actions must be on the table. "

That's blatant disregard for the constitution. This is the problem with our government, no one believes in the constitution anymore.

I guess I'm just one of those homeland "liberty loving" terrorists out there.

So you are saying that because Romney wants to defend America and Israel that he is trashing the constitution? Hmmm? What?

We have already been down this road of thought on a very lengthy thread that involved Lincoln and slavery and JV's arguments did not hold up. It seems to me that this is what happens when someone has a narrow understanding of the constitution and what it was intended to do. I appreciate anyone willing to defend the constitution but context is very important for understanding, otherwise we just end up with specious arguments.

It is not unconstitutional to defend ourselves from evil whether it be slavery or an Iran that wants to blow up Israel and kill all Jews and Christians.

It seems strange to me that a president, congress, and supreme court just threw the constitution out the window with prejudice and you want to nit-pic Romney for wanting to defend America. That is bazaar to me.