Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jetty Jumper

"I am constrained by a system our founders put in place."

Rate this topic

22 posts in this topic

Gee,I wonder what Barry would like to do,if he wasn't constrained?

 

 

 

DENVER (TheBlaze/AP) — Ratcheting up pressure for Congress to limit access to guns, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that recent steps by Colorado to tighten its gun laws show “there doesn’t have to be a conflict” between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

 

“I believe there doesn’t have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities,” Obama said in Denver, where he stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning assault weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines.

 

The president dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying “I am constrained by a system our founders put in place.”

Obama noted that more than 100 days have passed since the shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and reignited the national debate over access to guns.

 

“Every day that we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. Now the good news is Colorado has already chosen to do something about it,” he said.

Jason Howerton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


point?



 



aside from the fact that Obama is stating that the Constitution is there to protect citizens from Government abuse?



 



is he LAMENTING that fact?



or explaining that the protections of the Constitution make the bet wetters fears silly......



 



but EVERY politician knows the Constitution is there to protect us from them.....



 




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


He is lamenting.  As evidenced by his own words.  The negativity of the Bill of Rights.  Lichum has it, interview on NPR?  or a Chicago radio station.  Downright chilling.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetty Jumper View Post

The president dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying “I am constrained by a system our founders put in place.”

 



c'mon Little,



reading comprehension,



he's not saying WAH I want to do it and can't,



 



he's dismissing the emotional hyperbole of gun nuts by stating flat out that what they are saying they are afraid of, can't be done.



 



but you guys feel free to twist and spin emote about Obama.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish'nmagician View Post


c'mon Little,



reading comprehension,



he's not saying WAH I want to do it and can't,



 



he's dismissing the emotional hyperbole of gun nuts by stating flat out that what they are saying they are afraid of, can't be done.



 



but you guys feel free to twist and spin emote about Obama.





He is a gun nut.



 



WBEZ Radio June 2001:



 




If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. 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 its been interpreted and 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, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.





I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish'nmagician View Post


point?



 



aside from the fact that Obama is stating that the Constitution is there to protect citizens from Government abuse?



 



is he LAMENTING that fact?



or explaining that the protections of the Constitution make the bet wetters fears silly......



 



but EVERY politician knows the Constitution is there to protect us from them.....



 







You seem to be adrift here, let me drop your anchor.



Per Wikipedia



JOKE



A joke is something spoken, written, or done with humorous intention.[1] Jokes may have many different forms, e.g., a single word or a gesture (considered in a particular context), a question-answer, or a whole short story. The word "joke" has a number of synonyms, including wisecrack, gag, prank, quip, jape and jest.[1], To achieve their end, jokes may employ irony, sarcasm, word play and other devices. Jokes may have a punch line, i.e. an ending to make it humorous.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he constrained by the Constitution when he made unconstitutional appointments to the NLRB? He just ignored the court on that one, didn't he?

 

Our imperial president does not truly believe he is constrained by any mere law of man, much less a dusty piece of parchment. Even the NYT's have noted his "increasingly deliberate pattern ... to circumvent lawmakers." A complete and utter disregard and contempt for checks and balances. He has totally ignored the powers of the legislative branch in favor of Executive Orders and administrative decision making -- foisting laws and regulations on us without ---- and often in conscious disregard of --- congressional action.

 

Congress won't pass the Dream Act - **** it - I will issue and edict.

 

Congress won't pass cap and trade. Get Jackson on the phone - and tell her to write up some regulations.

 

You won't give me card check, that's ok, I will make recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate is not in recess, and tell them to push through some rules that accomplish my goals.

I don't like the laws on criminalizing the use of medical marijuana. Who cares? I will just instruct my Justice Department not to prosecute those that break the law.

 

I no longer approve of DOMA? I will just tell my lawyers to lay down and forfeit.

 

No child left behind! I disapprove so I will issue waivers that are inconsistent with a duly enacted law.

 

Congress won't pass "net neutrality" Internet regulations? Hell no. How dare they! Don't they know who I am? Get me the FCC on the line.

 

Constrained. Besides using a word that has a negative connotation in the context in which he used it, he could care less about any constraints. He does what the **** he wants, whenever the **** he wants. Who the **** is this guy, the Meisterburger Burgermeister?

 

He is an arrogant imperialistic pompous windbag.

 

(oh, and by the way, I agree with his positions on several of these issues - I just don't think you flout the law, the process, and usurp the powers of the legislature, ignoring every check and balance in the Constitution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is lamenting.  As evidenced by his own words.  The negativity of the Bill of Rights.  Lichum has it, interview on NPR?  or a Chicago radio station.  Downright chilling.

 

 

 

Obama's opinion of the Constitution is that it is deficient and defective; below, radical Obama expresses his unabashed hostility to negative rights, America's founding, constitutional principle:

 

An excerpt from Barack Obama's 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM:

 

 

" If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

 

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.

 

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I certainly find some of the content / sentiments expressed in that interview distasteful, the statement about the Constitution being a charter of 'negative liberties' is not among them.

 

Perhaps I would have preferred him to have said that the Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, which infers that the liberty interests retained by the citizen are in the negative side of the balance sheet, on the "not conferred" to government side.

 

Negative in this context recognizes the existence of rights without a "positive" statement empowering government to create, establish or grant them to the citizen . . . The Constitution telling us, "what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf".

 

A very early SCOTUS case explains this concept:

 

 

 

  • "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

 

 

 

Original, first generation civil and political rights are excepted out of the grant of power establishing government thus it is not objectionable that they be spoken of, in the context of the operation of the Constitution, as "negative".

 

Obama's main point, the truly objectionable one, is being completely missed.

 

His point isn't that "negative liberties" are the fundamental flaw; the flaw is that the structure of the Constitution affords no mechanism for the government to initiate second generation rights . . . social, cultural and most important, economic rights.

 

He's saying that as radical as the Warren Court was in extending to Blacks original civil and political rights (in agreement with the Constitution) it couldn't legitimately force a doctrine of social justice and economic redistribution to benefit Blacks. He laments, "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."

 

Then, in this interview speaking as a measly Illinois State Senator he is of the opinion that the opportunity to remedy this flaw, to advance second generation rights through the courts has passed us by . . .

 

Now that he is President I'm certain that his opinion has changed significantly, with the exercise of his constitutional power of federal judicial appointment.

 

So, the troubling part is that Obama fully recognizes that the impressment of the leftist second generation rights agenda is frustrated if not absolutely forbidden by the principles and structure of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Constitution (even through "radical" left-leaning seatings).

 

And THAT is a fundamental flaw of the founders / framers . . .

 

And that fundamental flaw must be "corrected".

 

And he is doing it.

 

How many of us are paying any attention to judicial appointments?

 

How many years will his appointments have to inflict this cancer upon the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DENVER (TheBlaze/AP) — Ratcheting up pressure for Congress to limit access to guns,

 

The president dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying “I am constrained by a system our founders put in place.”

 

 

I would like to be able to say that I beleive the President of the United States, but the truth of the matter is that I am still concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The president dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying “I am constrained by a system our founders put in place.”

 

I would like to be able to say that I beleive the President of the United States, but the truth of the matter is that I am still concerned.

 

1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.