• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Voters -- Are you sorry?

Are You Sorry You Voted for Obama?

  • I voted for Obama and am worried.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I voted against Obama but am pleased with his actions.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    50
They have and it doesn't make it right. One does not excuse the other.
What if they determine that speech regarding smaller government is treasonous?
Is that ok with you? What about speech against proposed programs, they can create an entire new definition for treason and it be legal.

How is saying something treasonous considered an infringement of another persons rights?

I never said I agreed with it, or thought it was right. Only that is was not a violation of the Constitution.
 
There is nothing in The Constitution that says judges are the final deciders on what The Constitution actually means.
Correct, nothing in the constitution says anything about granting the supreme court the power of judicial review. But that is the way it has been since near the very beginning; its a "well established precedent." So you can disagree all you want but I don't see it changing ANYTIME in the near future nor would I want it to.

I mean he is taking something away, which is not based on any past legal precedent. What authority does he or congress have in doing so?
why would they bother to justify this to you or anyone else?

If they do have the authority and the reasons for doing so, it should be very simple.

They do have the authority which is why they were able to enforce the act.
 
Correct, nothing in the constitution says anything about granting the supreme court the power of judicial review. But that is the way it has been since near the very beginning; its a "well established precedent." So you can disagree all you want but I don't see it changing ANYTIME in the near future nor would I want it to.

I didn't say anything would change, I am challenging their unfounded reasoning for passing laws that have no Constitutional support.

I don't believe our government will act more logically in the future, I believe it will act less reasonably and logically.

why would they bother to justify this to you or anyone else?

Because I am the people.
I am supposed to be the will at which they are allowed to govern.
The whole founding of our country.

You act as if they have a grand fiat beyond the realm of logic and reason.

They do have the authority which is why they were able to enforce the act.

The authority only exists because you legitimize it.
It vanishes most don't.
 
I didn't say anything would change, I am challenging their unfounded reasoning for passing laws that have no Constitutional support.
and those challenges must be brought up through the proper channels. Perhaps in the future they will be and the courts will rule for or against.

Personally I hope it is found unconstitutional.

I don't believe our government will act more logically in the future, I believe it will act less reasonably and logically.
ok



Because I am the people.
I am supposed to be the will at which they are allowed to govern.
The whole founding of our country.
but as the people we are given limited avenues to address our griviences: voting, influencing politicans, the appeals court, and rebellion.

You act as if they have a grand fiat beyond the realm of logic and reason.
they do in a sense: "The people who count the votes decide everything" ~Stalin

This is analgous to the supreme court and the interpretation of the constitution.

The authority only exists because you legitimize it.
It vanishes most don't.
Correct.
 
It'll take a hell of a lot to make me sorry for voting for Obama because the alternative was McCain and Palin

There were OTHER alternatives--the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr--yes, he had some discrepencies, but he was better than McCain and much better than Obama) and the Constitution Party.

I think by now, you should see a hell of a lot to be worried about. It scares the hell out of me to see the greatest nation the world has ever seen turn into another Soviet Union. Now get ready for a LOT of HELL.


I'm happy with Obama. People who say otherwise are probably confused or paranoid. Calm down people ... calm down. :)

Let's see how much you calm down when you are socked with Obama's catastrophic health care plan, 25+% unemployment, China literally owning our country, and Zimbabwe-style hypertinflation.


Actually that was congress.

Last time I checked, not vetoing a law wasn't unconstitutional.

Not vetoing an unconstitutional law would at least be a dereliction of duty. But what's worse, he SIGNED it. That makes it treason.


I was scared of both the people (the ones my state allowed me to vote for)running for office,which is why I didn't vote for president in the last election.

Weren't the Libertarian and Constitution parties on your ballot?
 
There were OTHER alternatives--

Third parties are not alternatives in the presidential election. There was exactly zero chance that anybody besides McCain or Obama was going to win the election

the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr--yes, he had some discrepencies, but he was better than McCain and much better than Obama) and the Constitution Party.

I just can't take Bob Barr seriously with that mustache

bob-barr.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not vetoing an unconstitutional law would at least be a dereliction of duty.
based on what precedent? Based on what law? I'm not saying your wrong but I want evidence before I take your word on it.

But what's worse, he SIGNED it. That makes it treason.
Even I'm guilty of playing arm-chair lawyer but you are wallowing in nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture right now.

Do you have any case law or any law for that matter to cite to back these claims? Or is this merely fantasy?
 
I inadvertantly hit the wrong choice on the poll-I needed to hit option #5.
 
and those challenges must be brought up through the proper channels. Perhaps in the future they will be and the courts will rule for or against.

Personally I hope it is found unconstitutional.

but as the people we are given limited avenues to address our griviences: voting, influencing politicans, the appeals court, and rebellion.

You and I know that many of those channels are not a real possibility of changing anything. I don't have any of kind of money required to influence.

they do in a sense: "The people who count the votes decide everything" ~Stalin

This is analgous to the supreme court and the interpretation of the constitution.

I dislike the legitimization of their power solely because they took it.
many of their powers are really not legal but most individuals have no idea what the government is supposed to do.

I guess I'm a bit scorned from all the corruption on both sides, I mean the current president hasn't even been in a year and it is apparent that he and his staff are corrupt to the gills.
 
You and I know that many of those channels are not a real possibility of changing anything.
That's for good reason. One unelected person shouldn't be able to change policy and law that governs millions without some type of consensus or authority given through election.

I don't have any of kind of money required to influence.
You have influence, but what have you done to use it?

I dislike the legitimization of their power solely because they took it.
That is disingenious. They are elected by officials we elect. In fact the process is 100% transparent. Its far from the dishonest assertion you make that SCOTUS judges simply "take power".

many of their powers are really not legal but most individuals have no idea what the government is supposed to do.
There's a difference between illegal and unprecedented.

I guess I'm a bit scorned from all the corruption on both sides, I mean the current president hasn't even been in a year and it is apparent that he and his staff are corrupt to the gills.
He's not anymore corrupt then all the previous presidents and politicians before him. The mantra of "change" is and always has been for suckers. Its brilliant.
 
Moderator's Warning:
spam removed by Tucker Case

Probably not the best idea to have your first post on this website dedicated to pimping out another website.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom