Obama A closet constitutionalist?

[Kade]

OK... request granted.

Obama is NOT a constitutionalist... nor are Clinton, Bush or McCain. They all have some idiotic notion that the constitution is a "living document" open to any interpretation they wish to inflict on it. The constitution is OUR authorization of what the federal government is permitted and required to do… you know, that “We the People” thing.

The "general welfare clause", as it has been described here, is not a clause at all. It is part of the preamble. Go look up the word preamble... it is ONLY an introduction that explains the purpose of the document. It is NOT a clause and does NOT bear any power in law. Even the Supreme Court made that clear earlier in our history… though they have lost their way and the ability to read since then.

The duties and powers authorized to congress are clearly spelled out... and the 10th Amendment says (to paraphrase in my own words) "and that's all folks". But, go read the real thing and see for yourself.

Obama and the others believe they can define the meaning and intent of the constitution based on two words in the preamble. That is not a valid reading of the words of this legal document. If you read the entire preamble you will also notice that they use the larger phrase "PROMOTE the general welfare". Go look up the word "promote"... notice they did not use the word "provide". The term "welfare" also has no relevance to what the today's socialists would like it to mean. Further, they are clearly talking about the "general welfare" of the United States... not money or projects to enrich individuals or corporations. But, these are only word play arguments. The phrase "promote the general welfare" is from the preamble and has no status in law... it is not a clause, it is not a granted power. It is just a statement regarding the contents of the document... the constitution.

The federal government is wildly out of control in regards to following the constitution... they do not come close to following it unless stains are found on a blue dress or $100,000.00 is found in the freezer of your congressional office. Obama and his ilk are in favour of things that are completely against the constitution (which means you can call them ILLEGAL)... some of them include:
1. National Health Care
2. National Welfare
3. National Social Security
4. The list goes on and on and on and on...

Until we are able to clearly explain the people the real meaning and intent of the constitution... and the benefits they would see if their daily lives... we will continue to lose. How long must we continue to revert to this notion of choosing the "lessor of the evils". Stop kidding yourself that making this type of choice is the "intellectual" thing to do... it is not. It doesn't matter if you are going to hell in a speeding vehicle or via a slow walk... you are still going to hell. (figuratively)

Everybody needs to go take a break from these forums and go read the constitution... and read it regularly. To me, its what this "movement" is all about and there seems to be a woeful lack of understand what the constitution actually says.

Go Here to Read The US Constitution... do it often

You are a sad, sad, little twerp.

 

[ARealConservative]

he most certainly understands the Constitution... he is trying to win an election now, and that requires pandering....

Obama is a living document constitutionalist.

He certainly agreed with the decisions of Roe v Wade, which is that privacy rights prevents government from ruling against abortion. I';m not sure why the same privacy rights don't prevent the state from ruling against domestic abuse, but apparently living document lawyers found a way to get us there.

He also agrees with today's interpretation of the elastic clause and the commerce clause.

So sure, he is a constitutionalist. Big frigging deal! Each and every member of SCOTUS would call themselves a constitutionalist as well.

Make no mistake, Obama is no friend of ours, you're just a class warfare liberal who agrees with the living document for political expedience.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Obama is a living document constitutionalist.

He's still learned in Constitutional law, and the living document interpretation is a perfectly valid one. Sorry if you can't reconcile the living Constitution with your beliefs, you're just not trying hard enough.

 

[familydog]

Does he have a solid record of pro-constitutional voting?

Why would he start now?

Hey! Leave Bob Barr out of this!

Obama a Constitutionalist? Nah.

 

[Kade]

Ooh, you have quotes from influential people I should have great respect for!

The people being ruled from the grave instead of having what they want for themselves (self-governance) is tyranny. Your view that taxation is theft is a minority one, and most Americans would not agree, which is why they support progressive taxation.

And is that Marx quote supposed to scare me? What if I like socialism? What if I told you the American public loves socialized libraries, firefighters, medical care, and transportation, all of which are present in the United States?

You are a very smart guy. You are exactly correct. We were not meant to be bound by the Constitution, the government was.... if the people want their tax money to pay for healthcare, so what... the people don't want their money going to corporate bailouts, foreign wars, national debt, and social policing.

 

[Kade]

Obama is a living document constitutionalist.

He certainly agreed with the decisions of Roe v Wade, which is that privacy rights prevents government from ruling against abortion. I';m not sure why the same privacy rights don't prevent the state from ruling against domestic abuse, but apparently living document lawyers found a way to get us there.

He also agrees with today's interpretation of the elastic clause and the commerce clause.

So sure, he is a constitutionalist. Big frigging deal! Each and every member of SCOTUS would call themselves a constitutionalist as well.

Make no mistake, Obama is no friend of ours, you're just a class warfare liberal who agrees with the living document for political expedience.

I believe in privacy rights as well. The constitution is a LIVING document, and only the wildly fanatical fringe of law thinks otherwise.

 

[ARealConservative]

He's still learned in Constitutional law, and the living document interpretation is a perfectly valid one. Sorry if you can't reconcile the living Constitution with your beliefs, you're just not trying hard enough.

Sadly, you can't make it through law school today unless you pretend to believe that the constitution is alive and fully open to interpretation.

Any other legal document is bound by the original understanding of those agreeing to the pact, so it isn't like law school in general is fully corrupt, just constitutional law.

 

[Kade]

Sadly, you can't make it through law school today unless you pretend to believe that the constitution is alive and fully open to interpretation.

Any other legal document is bound by the original understanding of those agreeing to the pact, so it isn't like law school in general is fully corrupt, just constitutional law.

What does cruel and unusual punishment mean?

 

[Rangeley]

We were not meant to be bound by the Constitution, the government was.... if the people want their tax money to pay for healthcare, so what... the people don't want their money going to corporate bailouts, foreign wars, national debt, and social policing.

Yes, the government is meant to be bound by it. If the people want something like universal healthcare, the constitution does not prevent them from having it. It simply prevents the government from appropriating money to it. If people wanted to change that, they could amend the Constitution.

This is, of course, a totally different issue to whether universal healthcare is a good idea on its merits.

 

[ARealConservative]

I believe in privacy rights as well. The constitution is a LIVING document, and only the wildly fanatical fringe of law thinks otherwise.

I, like everybody originally agreeing to be bound my the document, felt the powers were enumerated.

We don't need the promise of privacy at the federal level because the things they are supposed to do was limited anyway.

 

[Kade]

I, like everybody originally agreeing to be bound my the document, felt the powers were enumerated.

We don't need the promise of privacy at the federal level because the things they are supposed to do was limited anyway.

Libertarian Judge Richard Posner:

A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.

 

[Kade]

Yes, the government is meant to be bound by it. If the people want something like universal healthcare, the constitution does not prevent them from having it. It simply prevents the government from appropriating money to it. If people wanted to change that, they could amend the Constitution.

This is, of course, a totally different issue to whether universal healthcare is a good idea on its merits.

They don't need an amendment to ask for UHC... no where does the Constitution forbid people from asking their tax money to be allocated towards healthcare.

 

[TheTyke]

Obama was given the MOST media coverage from the very beginning (then Clinton, then McCain). This was BEFORE the voting, and it's exactly how the votes fell.

I blows my mind that anyone who supported Ron Paul would dance to their tune at this stage of the game. Obama might well win the election, but I will have no part in that! He is a dangerous man, and if you think the wars will end with him, you're dreaming!

 

[Kade]

The truth is, and you learn this 1L, is that the Framers were all legal theorists and professional scholars, they knew that this debate would be occurring, and they left no blueprint in the Constitution that specifies how to interpret it.

They would have indicated IN THE CONSTITUTION itself instructions on how to interpret.

The Constitution does not set out the instructions for its own interpretation. A theory of interpretation has to be defended, rather than asserted, and the defense must speak candidly in terms of the system of constitutional law that it will yield.
-Sunstein 106 CLMR 2234, 2236

 

[Kade]

Obama was given the MOST media coverage from the very beginning (then Clinton, then McCain). This was BEFORE the voting, and it's exactly how the votes fell.

I blows my mind that anyone who supported Ron Paul would dance to their tune at this stage of the game. Obama might well win the election, but I will have no part in that! He is a dangerous man, and if you think the wars will end with him, you're dreaming!

That is also not true. He won Iowa with his own grassroots effort, it was not the media that did it for him... after perhaps... not before.

 

[Rangeley]

They don't need an amendment to ask for UHC... no where does the Constitution forbid people from asking their tax money to be allocated towards healthcare.

The Constitution enumerates very specifically which powers are held by the Federal Government. It is for this reason that many opposed the Bill of Rights as redundant - the government was never given the power to make a state church, for instance. However, some, such as Jefferson, felt that some rights were so important, such as free speech, that it should be explicitly stated.

This does not mean that the Federal Government has the power to do anything not prohibited by the Bill of Rights, it can still only do the things enumerated to it by those particular sections of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes this much clear - the powers not delegated to the Federal government remain with the states or the people. If a state constitution allowed for state tax money to be appropriated to a statewide Universal Healthcare program, that would be constitutional.

 

[crazyfingers]

They don't need an amendment to ask for UHC... no where does the Constitution forbid people from asking their tax money to be allocated towards healthcare.

???

Any powers not explicitly enumerated to the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution are reserved for the states.

 

[ARealConservative]

What does cruel and unusual punishment mean?

notice I said "fully open"

Of course there is going to be some wording that is cloudy.

That does not mean we can go back and change the well documented meaning of necessary and proper, or we can claim privacy rights allow us to kill one another.

Except for the $20 rule in the Seventh Amendment, the Bill of Rights were originally understood to not add any new content to the basic Constitution. When we can prove original understanding, we must obide by it, even if we don't like the results. The document gives us other means of changing it outside of interpretation.

To allow loose interpretation is to reduce law from a command to a suggestion. you might like this concept when your guys are in power, but as Bush clearly demonstrates, you don't like it when bad guys take office.

 

[Kade]

The Constitution enumerates very specifically which powers are held by the Federal Government. It is for this reason that many opposed the Bill of Rights as redundant - the government was never given the power to make a state church, for instance. However, some, such as Jefferson, felt that some rights were so important, such as free speech, that it should be explicitly stated.

This does not mean that the Federal Government has the power to do anything not prohibited by the Bill of Rights, it can still only do the things enumerated to it by those particular sections of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes this much clear - the powers not delegated to the Federal government remain with the states or the people. If a state constitution allowed for state tax money to be appropriated to a statewide Universal Healthcare program, that would be constitutional.

You are correct sir. The blueprint for interpreting what some of those powers are, is not clear, intentionally. Jefferson strongly believed that more Rights would be secured, and future generations would add pro-liberty benefits. Hell, article I, section 8, The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; is quite clear on what the Federal Government may do... in regards to some things, depending on your INTERPRETATION. Which is why it's important. This argument is not going away.

 

[Kade]

notice I said "fully open"

Of course there is going to be some wording that is cloudy.

That does not mean we can go back and change the well documented meaning of necessary and proper, or we can claim privacy rights allow us to kill one another.

Except for the $20 rule in the Seventh Amendment, the Bill of Rights were originally understood to not add any new content to the basic Constitution. When we can prove original understanding, we must obide by it, even if we don't like the results. The document gives us other means of changing it outside of interpretation.

To allow loose interpretation is to reduce law from a command to a suggestion. you might like this concept when your guys are in power, but as Bush clearly demonstrates, you don't like it when bad guys take office.

Wrong my friend. We are today's leaders, we are the one's ruled by this document, and it was not intended to be an anchor to freedom, and the rational desires of the people. My guys have not been in power since Kennedy.