Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,123 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 6792

Posts: 28

My Comments: 397

User Comments: 348

Photos: 0

Friends: 24

Following: 0

Followers: 7

Points: 1064

Last Online: 475 days ago



No Recent Visitors

The Constitution: Obama's Toilet Paper

Added: Thursday, August 6th 2009 at 9:54pm by Rollo9

I know I am beating a dead horse, but with the country continuing on its downward spiral and the major networks and the likes of Pelosi and Babara Boxer accusing the townhall protestors of being Nazis or fringe radicals I felt it necessary to review some of the reasons why we are angry.  Here are some constitutional issues that our beloved president has taken upon himself to violate:

1) Government ownership in private business: The seizure of private business is unconstitutional and Obama has taken over GM and Chrysler.  He is also mandating how much Wall Street execs can earn and is capping income on ceos.  This issue has been beaten to death so there is no reason to go on any further about this one.


2) Redistribution of wealth: The redistribution of wealth in GM stock is unconstitutional.  The stock holders ended up with about 10% of their investment, the government 50% and the unions 40%, plus the unions received approximately $10 billion dollars in cash.


3) The Czars: Appointing czars by Obama is unconstitutional.  These czars report to no one but Obama, they have far reaching powers and congress cannot stop a single decision they make.  That is a grievous violation of the checks and balance set up by our fore fathers.


4) Health care: Obamas health care plan is unconstitutional. Obama wants to raise taxes for the wealthy to pay for this plan, but remember the redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional.  Also Obama has stated he plans to put private insurance out of business in order to achieve his goal.  The constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the right for health insurance, but Obama said to Tom Brokaw that healthcare "should be a right for every American."  But never fear, Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for the a Constitutional Amendment "to establish the right of citizens of the US to health care of equal high quality."


5) The bailouts: The constitution gives congress the power to spend tax payers money.  The president cannot do this without the consent of congress.  "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in the consequence of appropriations made by law."  President Bush used TARP money authorized by congress to fund the first bailout.  Obama didn't use TARP money, but declared he would get the money somewhere by using the power and authority of the Executive Branch.  Where does Obama get the authority to use tax payer money to bailout GM and Chrysler?  Bush used TARP funds in the first bailout with congressional approval, but TARP is to be used only for ailing financial institutions.  Auto makers are not financialinstitutions.  So Bush's use of TARP was very questionable as well.  The bottom line is the federal government does not have the authority to use tax payer money to bailout troubled financial institutions or to take over ownership of private businesses.


6) Supreme Court: Obama has stated he would like to see his Supreme Court nominees "embrace empathy in their decisions and opinions."  Justice is supposed to be blind and there is no room for a judge who uses empathy to determine cases.  Supreme Court nominees have to swear an oath that basically states they will administer justice equally and impartially to all and they will do this with the authority given to them by the constitution.  The constitution does not provide the Supreme Court with the oath, but it does state they "shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution."


If activist judges are appointed it will allow them to interpret the constitution as a living, breathing document and open an avenue for a judge to insert personal opinions and empathy which is unlawful.  This makes the constitution useless and unable to protect our rights as citizens.

User Comments

I wish I had a printer...I am writing this down to make copies. Thankyou for posting these violation.

The thing that amazes me is the number of people who don't care and even agree with his every move. I think half of the people who follow Obama would be Ok with the idea of abolishing the constitution altogether. It just gets in the way and forces people to put forth an effort in life. That's no fun.

Their attitude has bothered me in the past also. I'm getting over it. They are lazy, slow minded grubbers. I don't like worms so I ignore them.


Here is a direct quote from Obama regarding the constitution which I forgot to include:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

I heard him say that he could not work within the constitution.

Well, what about what we can't deal with? If we want to save our liberties and freedoms, we better get crackin!

Great title! and so truthfull too rollo...you can't beat this horse too much,,O is bad news for us all.keep it up!

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.