VanceM,
I think what Redress was eluding to is you can't blame Pres. Obama for Detroit's economic problems when the city fell in decline long before he came into office. If you want to blame anyone for the city's problems, there's plenty of blame that should have been casts long ago.
Redress rightly was also trying to deflect from the ridiculous idea that somehow any laws, plans or policies enacted by the current President would somehow turn things around overnight. To use a dieter's analogy...it took a long time for the individual to put on the weight; it's gonna take a long time to take the weight off. Same thing applies here.
Detroit and other economically depressed cities didn't just fall into decline from the inaction or wrongful actions of just one person. It's going to take alot to get such economically depressed cities back on their feet. It starts w/the city planners getting their citizens involved and with their policy makers to find ways to bring new businesses to their area that promote job creation and job growth. But the President's policies in and of themselves
will not be able to turn that around for Detroit or any other city. They may be a start, but it's up to the city planners themselves to turn things around in Detroit.
That's okay. I didn't understand the swipe from him about how I should read the constitution. I'm not the dumbass who is trying to amend it so that Obama will be stripped of his Presidency.
The reason I asked is because none of the Amendments Crunch mentioned have anything to do with citizenship or the Presidency. As to the original drafting of the 13th Amendment these "13ners" would like to bring back, they'd have a very difficult time doing so considering:
a) Art. 1, 2, and 3 already outline the qualifications and elective processes for the Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches of government; and,
b) the 14th Amendment clearly defines who are this nation's citizens.
And if you wanted to go further, Art. 3, Sect. 3 covers acts of Treason. So, IMO, all the basis that the original drafting of the 13th Amendment would have covered as far as citizenship, subversion of power and authority, and where one's alliances are draw in this country are already covered under the Constitution as it currently stands. There's really no need to rehash an old and useless amendment whose only purpose obviously is to remove someone from office just because someone doesn't like him. Pure foolishness. :roll: