What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    With every passing day, President Obama uses his pen and his phone to expand his power and unilaterally change immigration, health care, energy, and tax laws. These actions have met with the approval of liberals everywhere. This is not a new attitude. Liberals have always been in favor of the “imperial presidency” from Roosevelt to Johnson to Obama, conveniently skipping Richard Nixon, of course. Liberal scholars have long championed the need of chief executives to meet modern exigencies as defined by liberal priorities—so long as a Democrat was in the White House.


     


    Curiously, while liberals believe the chief executive can unilaterally modify laws passed by Congress, they do not accept many constitutional limits on Congress’ legislative jurisdiction. The Constitution specifically delegates certain enumerated powers to the legislative branch, yet the last Congress run by Democrats governed as if it had plenary powers to legislate on any topic. Who can forget the bemused look of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was asked to state the specific congressional power that authorized Obamacare? So while Congress can legislate on any topic, their actions are subject to unilateral revision by the chief executive.


     


    However, what is most radically different about the Obama liberals’ interpretation of the Constitution is its neutering of the Bill of Rights. To be sure, liberals never had much good to say about the Second, Ninth and 10th Amendments, but now they’re striking at other amendments, even those they once revered.


     


    This president has claimed authority to use drones to kill American citizens. He is copying the last administration here, though this time liberals are untroubled by any Fifth Amendment concerns.


     


    The last vestige of American liberty is certainly the First Amendment’s core guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. Yet, liberals have been cutting back on free expression for years, especially with college campus “speech codes” that outlaw statements deemed offensive to any groups that might feel aggrieved. Rigorous debate and the free expression of ideas are jettisoned in favor of a pop psychological imperative to make groups and individuals feel good about themselves.


     


    This assault on free speech continues with a constitutional amendment proposed by a several Democratic senators that would authorize Congress to regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.” Imagine this language in the hands of acquisitive federal bureaucrats looking for wrongs to correct and matters to regulate and control.


     


    If you doubt that, just check out how the bureaucrats are interpreting Obamacare and religious liberty. Though not specifically required by Obamacare or any other law, Department of Health and Human Services bureaucrats working with legal abortion absolutists, have issued regulations mandating that every business provide coverage for “morning after”-type contraceptive devices and drugs in their medical plans.


     


     Ironically, the only constitutional provision to limit government power that liberals still champion is the right of “privacy,” which of course is found nowhere in the Constitution.


     


    In recent years, many Democrats have sought to rebrand “liberalism” and “progressivism.” This is not just a cosmetic name change. Liberals of a generation ago accepted limits on government action, especially those limits contained in the Bill of Rights. Progressives, by contrast, have always found limits on their power to be inconvenient. ...If progressive government in this administration has taught us anything, it is that liberties that run counter to great progressive ambitions are in serious danger.


     


    Be afraid. Be very afraid. 


    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/23/what_part_of_the_constitution_do_liberals_still_support_123726.html#ixzz3BDz6tb3H" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/23/what_part_of_the_constitution_do_liberals_still_support_123726.html#ixzz3BDz6tb3H

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

     


     


     


    LIIIIIIIIIIIIBRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUL!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Wow, with all this shredding and rending of the Constitution it's not surprising that Obama and his cronies are being impeached or on their way to jail ...


    Wait ... what? They're not?


    No one in this admin has been actually charged with anything close to what the OP implies?


    So either these wingnuts are hopeless failures in defending said Constitution or CLC and the OP author are unhinged wingnuts just whipping up their whacko base with empty rhetoric that only people of a certain ilk will respond to.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    They support "the separation of church and state."

    Oh wait, that's not in there.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:



    They support "the separation of church and state."
     
    Oh wait, that's not in there.


    You're confusing a metaphor with the actual interpretation and application of the Constitution ... you know, all those USSC rulings and that judicial precedent thingy.


    Newflash, just because you don't agree with USSC decisions, that doesn't make them any less valid under the Constitution.


    Care to try again?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    I'm not arguing the SC decisions, they interpret the Constitution as they will. I just think it's ironic that the one "constitutional thing" that progressives constantly go to isn't actually in there in writing, although most people probably think it is. Another triumph of message over reality! It's hilarious!

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:



    I'm not arguing the SC decisions, they interpret the Constitution as they will. I just think it's ironic that the one "constitutional thing" that progressives constantly go to isn't actually in there in writing, although most people probably think it is. Another triumph of message over reality! It's hilarious!




    Huh?


    So people must always use to the exact text of the Constitution when referring to particular rights?


    It's not enough to use the same phrase that Thomas Jeffereson coined and intoduced into the American lexicon ... the same shorthand that the other Founding Fathers and delegates who wrote and ratified the Constitution used when referencing the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause ... or the same wording that appears in the USSC rulings on the subject?


    It's more than ridiculous that your you're* arguing against the use of the very phrase that the people who wrote the Constitution used when explaining the intent of those two clauses.


    It's particularly hilarious ... especially in light of the intentionally vague "unConstitutional" references in the OP.


    Let me guess 'terrorist act' <> 'act of terror' ...


    *caught my grammatical error this time

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    In response to slomag's comment:


    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html






    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?


    On the contrary, the Obama administration has just "reassigned" many who really should have been fired and has "forced to resign" some who were about to retire anyway. Gotta admit, they take care of their apparatchiks.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:



    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?
     
    On the contrary, the Obama administration has just "reassigned" many who really should have been fired and has "forced to resign" some who were about to retire anyway. Gotta admit, they take care of their apparatchiks.


    Which -ELECTED- officials are you referring to?


    Obviously you're confusing appointed officials, who "serve at the pleasure of the president" , and those people who are duly elected by the voters.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Wasn't Cheney who said the powers of the President are unlimited?

     

    The Executive Office of the President and the Bush administration in general have drawn widespread criticism for their push toward a “unitary executive,” a presidency with vastly increased power to interpret and implement the law. The administration’s decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping, its use of signing statements to pick and choose which portions of legislation to execute, its push for unrestricted detention of suspects in the war on terror, and its broad and aggressive assertion of executive privilege all drew bipartisan criticism. Some view the changes as a positive reassertion of executive power that was lost in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — indeed, as far back as the dawn of the Reagan administration, current Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed incoming Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker to “restore power” and authority to the executive branch. Cheney and other adherents of the unitary executive believe that a powerful executive branch is especially important during time of war. Others view it as a dangerous power grab by a president unwilling to be held accountable by the judicial or legislative branches. Either way, with its opposition to both judicial review of its decisions (regarding handling of detainees, for example) and assertions of authority over Congress (as seen through its signing statements and refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas), the Bush administration has pushed executive power to a level unseen for many years. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, but in 2006, President Bush defended his decision-making role, noting, “I'm the decider, and I decide what's best.”

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is a link to an article about Obama firing an appointed official supposed to be relevant?  If Perry had the power to fire the Travis County DA, he would have done so.  Instead he used the power he did have to try to coerce the outcome he wanted - that's abuse; that's corruption.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Which -ELECTED- officials are you referring to?

    Why are you being pedantic? You know very well that President Obama does not have the power to fire an ELECTED official, as much as he'd like to.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    Once again I refer you to John Adams,  our 2nd President. Those founders really respected that sacred document, the Constitution, didn't they? Even Jefferson compromised on his strict constructionist beliefs. Nothing new here folks. Business as usual. On paper is one thing. What is actually done by people in power is another. The Constitution has been trampled on from the beginning yet keeps being held up as sacred scripture no matter how much history shows it is not. Which side loves the Constitution more? Neither.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is a link to an article about Obama firing an appointed official supposed to be relevant?  If Perry had the power to fire the Travis County DA, he would have done so.  Instead he used the power he did have to try to coerce the outcome he wanted - that's abuse; that's corruption.

     [/QUOTE]


    Governor Perry asked the DA, who was convicted of drunken driving, to resign. When she did not do so, he used his lawful power as Governor to veto the funding for the Travis County DA office. Perfectly legal, perfectly appropriate.

    Democrats abuse their prosecutorial authority by criminalizing political differences. Perry did nothing wrong or corrupt. The corruption is in the radical leftists in Austin, by indicting a sitting Governor for using the veto power given him in the State Constitution. They did the same thing to Republican Senator Kay Bailey  Hutchinsin, and were laughed out of court. Their political indictment of Tom DeLay has also been thrown out.

    After their joke of an indictment against Perry is broomed, strike three.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wasn't Cheney who said the powers of the President are unlimited?

     

    The Executive Office of the President and the Bush administration in general have drawn widespread criticism for their push toward a “unitary executive,” a presidency with vastly increased power to interpret and implement the law. The administration’s decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping, its use of signing statements to pick and choose which portions of legislation to execute, its push for unrestricted detention of suspects in the war on terror, and its broad and aggressive assertion of executive privilege all drew bipartisan criticism. Some view the changes as a positive reassertion of executive power that was lost in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — indeed, as far back as the dawn of the Reagan administration, current Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed incoming Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker to “restore power” and authority to the executive branch. Cheney and other adherents of the unitary executive believe that a powerful executive branch is especially important during time of war. Others view it as a dangerous power grab by a president unwilling to be held accountable by the judicial or legislative branches. Either way, with its opposition to both judicial review of its decisions (regarding handling of detainees, for example) and assertions of authority over Congress (as seen through its signing statements and refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas), the Bush administration has pushed executive power to a level unseen for many years. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, but in 2006, President Bush defended his decision-making role, noting, “I'm the decider, and I decide what's best.”

    [/QUOTE]


    You use dated Dem talking points. Obama after promising not to use signing statements has done so. Obama has killed American citizens with drone missiles,  with no due process...Obama doesnt have to bother with detention of terrorist suspects, and providing them counsel, because he signs orders on his sole authority and sends cruise missiles to eviscerate them and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.

    Obama has taken  the limited powers of executive orders to new levels, ignoring statutes to run his own immigration law...ignoring statutory deadlines in ObamaCare at his whim.

    So liberals now support unlimited executive power, because a liberal is in office.....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:




    Which -ELECTED- officials are you referring to?

    Why are you being pedantic? You know very well that President Obama does not have the power to fire an ELECTED official, as much as he'd like to.



    Why do you keep trying to move the goalposts?


    The question was simple and straightforward, yet all your posted responses are immaterial and unrelated to the question.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has Obama ever used the power of his office to force the resignation of an elected official?  

    [/QUOTE]


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is a link to an article about Obama firing an appointed official supposed to be relevant?  If Perry had the power to fire the Travis County DA, he would have done so.  Instead he used the power he did have to try to coerce the outcome he wanted - that's abuse; that's corruption.

     [/QUOTE]


    Governor Perry asked the DA, who was convicted of drunken driving, to resign. When she did not do so, he used his lawful power as Governor to veto the funding for the Travis County DA office. Perfectly legal, perfectly appropriate.

    Democrats abuse their prosecutorial authority by criminalizing political differences. Perry did nothing wrong or corrupt. The corruption is in the radical leftists in Austin, by indicting a sitting Governor for using the veto power given him in the State Constitution. They did the same thing to Republican Senator Kay Bailey  Hutchinsin, and were laughed out of court. Their political indictment of Tom DeLay has also been thrown out.

    After their joke of an indictment against Perry is broomed, strike three.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, man - hitch your wagon to Tom DeLay to prove Rick Perry's innocence.  Great strategy. From the same minds who are asking Dick Cheney what to do in Iraq.

    When you use the power of your office to do things you do not have power to do, that is abuse.  How about Obama removes all troops from the Texas border until the state elects somebody with a brain?

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which -ELECTED- officials are you referring to?

    Why are you being pedantic? You know very well that President Obama does not have the power to fire an ELECTED official, as much as he'd like to.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    And using the power of his office to coerce an elected official to resign would be illegal.  Probably impeachable.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wasn't Cheney who said the powers of the President are unlimited?

     

    The Executive Office of the President and the Bush administration in general have drawn widespread criticism for their push toward a “unitary executive,” a presidency with vastly increased power to interpret and implement the law. The administration’s decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping, its use of signing statements to pick and choose which portions of legislation to execute, its push for unrestricted detention of suspects in the war on terror, and its broad and aggressive assertion of executive privilege all drew bipartisan criticism. Some view the changes as a positive reassertion of executive power that was lost in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — indeed, as far back as the dawn of the Reagan administration, current Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed incoming Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker to “restore power” and authority to the executive branch. Cheney and other adherents of the unitary executive believe that a powerful executive branch is especially important during time of war. Others view it as a dangerous power grab by a president unwilling to be held accountable by the judicial or legislative branches. Either way, with its opposition to both judicial review of its decisions (regarding handling of detainees, for example) and assertions of authority over Congress (as seen through its signing statements and refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas), the Bush administration has pushed executive power to a level unseen for many years. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, but in 2006, President Bush defended his decision-making role, noting, “I'm the decider, and I decide what's best.”

    [/QUOTE]


    You use dated Dem talking points. Obama after promising not to use signing statements has done so. Obama has killed American citizens with drone missiles,  with no due process...Obama doesnt have to bother with detention of terrorist suspects, and providing them counsel, because he signs orders on his sole authority and sends cruise missiles to eviscerate them and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.

    Obama has taken  the limited powers of executive orders to new levels, ignoring statutes to run his own immigration law...ignoring statutory deadlines in ObamaCare at his whim.

    So liberals now support unlimited executive power, because a liberal is in office.....

    [/QUOTE]

    Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

    Habeas Corpus is suspended when invasion or rebellion threatens the public safety.

    Delaying a penalty such as a fine in Obamacare is known as a reprieve, and is among the enumerated powers of the executive branch.

    On the other hand, the second amendment very clearly states that the right to bear arms is related to service in a State Militia, but you fools have twisted it into thinking a 3-day waiting period would have Alexander Hamilton turning in his grave.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wasn't Cheney who said the powers of the President are unlimited?

     

    The Executive Office of the President and the Bush administration in general have drawn widespread criticism for their push toward a “unitary executive,” a presidency with vastly increased power to interpret and implement the law. The administration’s decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping, its use of signing statements to pick and choose which portions of legislation to execute, its push for unrestricted detention of suspects in the war on terror, and its broad and aggressive assertion of executive privilege all drew bipartisan criticism. Some view the changes as a positive reassertion of executive power that was lost in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — indeed, as far back as the dawn of the Reagan administration, current Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed incoming Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker to “restore power” and authority to the executive branch. Cheney and other adherents of the unitary executive believe that a powerful executive branch is especially important during time of war. Others view it as a dangerous power grab by a president unwilling to be held accountable by the judicial or legislative branches. Either way, with its opposition to both judicial review of its decisions (regarding handling of detainees, for example) and assertions of authority over Congress (as seen through its signing statements and refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas), the Bush administration has pushed executive power to a level unseen for many years. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, but in 2006, President Bush defended his decision-making role, noting, “I'm the decider, and I decide what's best.”

    [/QUOTE]


    You use dated Dem talking points. Obama after promising not to use signing statements has done so. Obama has killed American citizens with drone missiles,  with no due process...Obama doesnt have to bother with detention of terrorist suspects, and providing them counsel, because he signs orders on his sole authority and sends cruise missiles to eviscerate them and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.

    Obama has taken  the limited powers of executive orders to new levels, ignoring statutes to run his own immigration law...ignoring statutory deadlines in ObamaCare at his whim.

    So liberals now support unlimited executive power, because a liberal is in office.....

    [/QUOTE]

    Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

    Habeas Corpus is suspended when invasion or rebellion threatens the public safety.

    Delaying a penalty such as a fine in Obamacare is known as a reprieve, and is among the enumerated powers of the executive branch.

    On the other hand, the second amendment very clearly states that the right to bear arms is related to service in a State Militia, but you fools have twisted it into thinking a 3-day waiting period would have Alexander Hamilton turning in his grave.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You may have read the  Constitution, but you are 0 for 3 , woefully uninformed on its meaning.

    A rebellion or invasion exists, so that the suspension of "Habeas corpus" gives the President authority to send cruise missiles to Pakistan?

    Wow.

    The "repreive" power allows the President to ignore statutory deadlines? The repreive power relates to stopping executions...

    As to the Second Amendment, the Supreme court has directly held in the Heller case , that the Second Amendment relates to a personal right to bear arms, notwithstanding the later reference to a militia .

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    The 14th Amendment

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Do Liberals Still Support?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The 14th Amendment

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you, that is a start.

     

Share