Ways Obama tramples the U.S. Constitution

Just for some clarity on the Czars in Bush's admin. Bush had 36 positions some of which were temporary filled by 46 or 47 people throughout his two terms. Of those 21 were confirmed by the Senate. Now, of Obama's 32 or so Czars only 6 or 7 were actually vetted by the Senate.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by sos37

 

And as I said before, another ATS poster challenged me to show 3 ways that Obama trampled the Constitution. As it was off-topic to the original post, ATS requires that a new post be created which is what I did. Sorry if you have a problem with my following the ATS rules, but you can go whine to a mod if you don't like it.

but is it really necessary to vehemently derail a thread in order to scream from the mountain tops that you started a new thread?

Send a u2u next time.

All you've done is proven everyone else right.

Bush and Obama are both politicians. What you chastise Obama for - Bush has done the same.

Maybe you should ask why you seem to be the only one who doesn't see it that way?

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Snarf]

Hold on a sec. When did I say that Bush wasn't a politician? Or that I absolutely loved the job Bush did?

I think a lot of you are of the mindset that "if someone rags on Obama they must be Bush lovers" - which is simply not true.

The purpose of the post was to prove Obama has trampled the Constitution. Never in my posts have I ever said that Bush never trampled on the Constitution.

reply to post by sos37

The purpose of the post was to prove Obama has trampled the Constitution. Never in my posts have I ever said that Bush never trampled on the Constitution.

then you have my apologies. It seems as though i did jump to a conclusion.

Good job calling it out

Just once, in any thread, I don't even care which one, I wish people would stop all of this BUSH VERSUS OBAMA crap.

Here's the thing:

THEY BOTH SUCK. THEY BOTH ABUSE(D) POWER. THEY BOTH ARE SUCCEEDING IN RUNNING THIS COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND. JUST BECAUSE BUSH DID IT.....THE MOST HATED PRESIDENT IN RECENT TIMES....DOESN'T MEAN THAT OBAMA CAN DO THE SAME NONSENSE.

Put an end to this already. The way you guys are arguing no wonder the US is in the state it is in.

Bush did it first so let's continue...Bush started in Iraq so let Obama continue....Bush started the economy failing so let Obama make it worse....

Wait! I forgot!

None of this matters because he only inherited it....

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Anamnesis
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Would be great if you would provide references to back up the claims about Obama'a Czar powers. I'm getting tired of looking up some of the claims people make here.

Thanks in advance.... respectfully.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Anamnesis]

He's talking about Kenneth Feinberg. And I believe this will cover what you're looking for.

www.reuters.com...

Read the first line:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The man who has the power to set pay on Wall Street is hitting the road for a series of speeches before he has even publicly testified before Congress.

and also:

www.nypost.com...

How is it that a 'pay czar' is in any position to make demands of a private business, even one that accepted government bailout funds?

The bailout itself is unconstitutional. That Feinberg has any power other than advising the president is also a violation.

Thank you for providing a few. There are many examples of Czars wielding power. And this is where the debate lies. No President, Republican or Democrat should circumvent the constitution in this manner. If you don't like something in the constitution, try to pass a constitutional amendment. Because outside of that, the constitution is not something to be treated as optional or as guidelines. That mindset has seriously weakened our country. If anything the constitution needs to be stronger now. Worded to expressly forbid the unconstitutional BS that is happening through all levels of govt now.

The promotion of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State violates the constitution also. She was in the Senate when a pay raise was given to Sec. of State position and it clearly states in the Constitution that she, or any other senator that was in the Senate when that vote was taken is not eligable for that position. Obama was a constitutional law professor (or so he says) and would surely know this.

with regard to the whole 'bush vs obama' thing, i think that the point most people are trying to make when they reference GWB's misdeeds is that the outrage was nowhere near as heavy for almost A DECADE as it is with the new guy, when it's provable that GWB and crew did waaaaaay more damage to the country and its freedoms, liberties, ideals, yadda yadda yadda. the majority of the things people cite as proof of BO's desire to 'destroy our america' are disprovable, effectively rendering the repeat of said points propaganda and most of the rest require so much of a stretch of the actual facts that they may as well be taken from the enquirer. though i like BO, no one is infallible. however, most of the things the neocon-esque use as ammo, at best, have not even come to pass. and more often than not are just steaming piles of bs. this tends to make people think that the outrage is rooted in something else. no one is interested in truth, it would seem.

i wonder how it is that the uber rich of this country have been able to fool such a large group into fighting tooth and nail for the people whose policies have hurt americans the most. hate is a very strong and dangerous thing. but apparently very rewarding when engaged in in large unruly groups.

Originally posted by rlrsar
The promotion of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State violates the constitution also. She was in the Senate when a pay raise was given to Sec. of State position and it clearly states in the Constitution that she, or any other senator that was in the Senate when that vote was taken is not eligable for that position. Obama was a constitutional law professor (or so he says) and would surely know this.

not to trivialize ANY circumventing of the constitution, but this kind of thing supports my point. vs all the other crap that has been done to us over the years, behind our backs and to our face, this is so small its almost nitpicking. who has that hurt? again, i'm not saying it's cool but who? how is it possible that things like this produce more outrage than all that other stuff? i just don't get it.

would you have him fire HC then?

I'm all for the emergence of the "Constitution Party" or "The People's Party" which is neither Republican nor Democratic.

Ideally, the country would run best under a mixture of ideologies from both Democratic and Republican tickets as well as Green Party and other Independent tickets that do not violate the Constitution and do not include ideals from either side's extreme population.

Then the challenge would fall to a Congress + President not to lean one way or another, but to stay as neutral as possible within reason.

Even though others have covered the czar part of your post, I have questions on these others.

Originally posted by sos37
2. The Auto Industry bailout done by Obama was unconstitutional

Both Bush and Obama participated in the auto industry bailout, however the way Obama did it was unconstitutional. Why? Bush used Congressionally-approved TARP funds which probably violated the Treasury Department mandate that the funds were used to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, and the auto industry doesn't exactly count as a financial institution. Obama, on the other hand, determined that he would use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler, with no authorization.

So far I'm following your point and expecting the clause in the constitution that supports your point, but you quote this?

Obama might insist that his authority comes from Article I, Section 8. ""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The "General Welfare" Clause.

This is about collecting taxes. What does this have to with using tax dollars to bail out a company?

Then you continue...

However it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Additionally, James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

These are quotes from people and not from the Constitution. You can't use them to prove this was un-constitutional.

The following certainly doesn't explain it.

HR 7321 (The Auto Industry Bailout Bill) would have allocated non-direct-taxpayer funds for this, but it died in the Senate in December 2008.

So this bill failed and didn't actually happen, but you still use it for support? Obama did bail out the industry using tax dollars, but you use a failed bill as support? I'm sure you can do better.

Maybe you left something out, so I will give you the chance to explain.

On to the next one.

3. Government ownership of private business (percentage of General Motors via the auto industry bailout)

Violation of the 10th amendment.

OK, I'm listening. Surely you have something this time.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This statement is saying that the States reserve the rights that are not superseded by the Federal government. What does this have to do with the government ownership of an industry? I will admit, I am no lawyer and may not understand.

Specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government is allowed to own a private business. And because this is the Constitution, the government is only allowed to act within the powers granted by the Constitution. It's not a matter of 'the Constitution didn't say I couldn't do that, so I'm going to do that'.

So you are saying that there is nothing in the constitution that makes it unconstitutional in a post that points out how Obama is being unconstitutional.

4. Redistribution of Wealth is unconstitutional (clear evidence with Obama's 'spread the wealth around' comment)

Not only are Obama's 'spread the wealth around' ideologies unconstitutional, but this makes the current health care plan which seeks to tak the wealthy and pay for health care unconstitutional as it is redistribution of wealth at the federal level.

Again, this violates the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Again your saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes this unconstitutional. This is a strawman argument in the highest order. It is like saying the constitution does not have anything in it that allows the president to go to the bathroom, so every time Obama takes a piss he is being unconstitutional.

I am not saying this in support of the government, because I agree that the government is out of control and is spending money like drunken sailors. You just need to come up with better arguments than this to make such a strong claim. If I could, I would help, but I am not a lawyer, unlike the president.

reply to post by sos37

Thanks OP! The attacks on you for this post is unfounded and immature. The reality of our political system today is that people who really care about politics are on one side or the other and they will never switch sides. Their identities as human beings are wrapped up in their political views. They are as devoted to their own understanding of things as religious people are to their religion. This is especially difficult for liberals because they believe that they are the smartest people in the world and we conservatives are all back-woods, ignorant hicks. Liberals have abandoned common sense because - well - it's 'common'.

reply to post by RaDios

The reality of our political system today is that people who really care about politics are on one side or the other and they will never switch sides.

It is not about "switch sides" it is about recognizing the Democrats AND the Republicans are BOTH bought and paid for by the Corporate/Banking elite. That BOTH sides have no respect for the Constitution or the welfare of the American people. They only thing they are interested in is lining their pockets.

Here is and example:

Clinton & Congress ratified the World Trade Organization. Robert Shapiro was CEO of Monsanto AND Clinton's Foreign Policy Advisor. Dan Amstutz was VP of Cargill and the US trade Rep who wrote the Agreement on Ag.

Since then the USDA and FDA changed the US food regs to the International HACCP Regs, causing increase outbreak of illness. Clinton, Bush and Obama have supported pushing the much hated Animal ID on farmers as well as regulations that remove the "freedom to farm" using licensing fees, red tape and fines.

Now we have the WTO "Guide to Good Farming Practices "(published Jan 2005) showing up. It was first seen as a simple short bill in 2005 as The Safe and Secure Food Act under Bush. It did not pass.

This year it is showing up as very long bills such as Rosa Delauro's HR 875

So lets take a look at the democratic champion of the people, Rosa Delauro

Weathiest Members Of Congress:


...But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa--tied for #48 on the Richest list--gets the lion's share of her wealth from her husband--Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, "DeLauro's primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however."

My bud the political warhorse snorted, "Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn't have a dime--I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!" Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, "That means they're making around $50 million! These people shouldn't be running Democratic campaigns!"

So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps--Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry's chief message-shaper Bob Shrum--are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel--proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape--is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, "a liberal is a power junkie without the power." 

www.mlive.com...

Greenpeace tied Greenberg to Monsanto as one of their consultants.

As I said ALL the politicians with few exceptions are in the pockets of the Corporate/Banking elite. They must get a really good laugh when they hear us serfs supporting "our team" as the politicians and the bankers continue to take us to the cleaners.



Here at ATS we are supposed to be able to see past the bread and circuses to the true Conspiracies, not cheer some actor on stage meant to divert us.

While the Onion is a parady, often times there is a grain of truth. And I don't think this article could say it any better:

Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

the onion

Originally posted by sos37
***snip***
Ideally, the country would run best under a mixture of ideologies from both Democratic and Republican tickets as well as Green Party and other Independent tickets that do not violate the Constitution and do not include ideals from either side's extreme population.
***snip***

Isn't the point really that the constitution doesn't work too well in todays society? Perhaps there is a reason that there are so many ammendments? That the original constitution sucks?

When BO tries to provide a new health care system in the US he is hammered for being a socialist and unconstitutional. Even though the very idea is closely supported by the Christian thought. The good samaritan. Help thy neighbour. Do onto others... etc. etc.

When he bails out the auto industri it is unconstitutional because he is using tax payers money. What other money is available to the government?
What if he hadn't? Many hundred of thousands of jobs lost or the American car industry and it support network sold to the Arabs?

Now he is also trying to deal with the climate change in an unconstitutional way. The constitutional fathers never anticipated that the people of the world would bring us this close to our collective deaths. With the USofA in a leading role. After all you are world leaders (I didn't vote for you). Lead then - in the attempt to rectify the problem.

Get over the fact that you have a dark skinned president and forget that you didn't get W. R. Monger voted into office.

Look at what he is trying to achieve and help with it instead of burrying your head in the sand and spout utter crap.

So what if BO has made HC WhateverOffice in spite of your particular reading of the constitution.

Honestly.
Your great nation would run best if you got rid of double standards, biggotry, hypocracy and fear of socialist ideas.
You also need to rid yourselves of the laws that protect the rich and powerfull and start protecting the not so rich people. Open your eyes for the fact that every time the rich are on the verge of getting touched somebody cries out - SOCIALISM. Promptly hundreds of millions of proud Americans oppose it. Sheep.

Oh - AND do try to live by the Christian foundation that you guys are so want to cite whenever you can.
Christianity is so much more than having beeps replacing swear words on tv or forcing us to avoid words like "black" or banning children's rhymes.

You can start shouting again when the constitution (and it's 27 proofs of not being that good) is violated in a way that harms the American people as a whole. Not just when it harms some people (like the filthy rich and their sheep).

And even then you have to be silent if those violations are there because we (as a world population) are trying to survive as a species.

Originally posted by nh_ee


Wasn't it Dubya who said :
" The Constitution ? It's just a goddamned piece of paper".

There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.

Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.

Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."

Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice.

In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories.

Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name."


That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him:

Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): We would get quotes via email on current topics. He claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and an appointee of both the Nixon and Bush administration. I was told he had been checked out. But he wasn't who he said he was and we used his phony name in stories.

This time Thompson says he revised or deleted 83 stories that had relied on information from "Harleigh" or quoted him.

www.factcheck.org...

okay guys, forget the constitution...

really...

just stop. just stop!!!

reply to post by sos37


OK, I'd like to change my first judgment after looking into this a bit.

You said...

Originally posted by sos37
2. The Auto Industry bailout done by Obama was unconstitutional

Both Bush and Obama participated in the auto industry bailout, however the way Obama did it was unconstitutional. Why? Bush used Congressionally-approved TARP funds which probably violated the Treasury Department mandate that the funds were used to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, and the auto industry doesn't exactly count as a financial institution. Obama, on the other hand, determined that he would use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler, with no authorization.

It is true that both Bush and Obama wanted to use TARP money to bailout the auto industry, but lets start at the beginning so we apply the guilt to whom deserves it.

First of all, I agree that congress passing the TARP bill may have been unconstitutional, because they basically relinquished their duty to oversee the distribution of tax payers money to an unelected official. That was neither Bush or Obama's responsibility.

Bush knew he had to get congressional approval to use TARP funds to bailout the auto industry. Congress never gave this approval, so as far as the auto industry bailout goes, that was the end of it for him.

Obama takes office and tries again to get approval, but everyone said the auto industry was a mess and would not go along. That's when Obama said in order to get help from the government the auto companies had to restructure and GM's CEO had to resign.

I don't recall how, but Obama did give them bailouts, but I believe it came from TARP funds. This is where I do not see any sources that say he got approval from Congress, so if he didn't, that would be unconstitutional.

So if this is true, then I would agree that Obama overstepped his authority as president. Before he was president he was a senator, which is not responsible for controlling the money according to the constitution, but I bet he did vote in favor of the TARP funds.

So the bailouts were not done properly according to the constitution, but nobody is going to convict anyone else, because they are all guilty.

You would have to show that Obama did not get congressional approval before saying he was unconstitutional, but in the short time I looked, I could not find any source stating that he did. Otherwise all the other points were the responsibility of Congress.

Here are some good articles explaining this.

Unconstitutional Bailout
McCain Says Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Use Bank Bailout Money to Bailout Auto Makers
The Illegal, Unconstitutional Bush-Obama Auto Bailout

[edit on 11/14/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by sos37

Ways Obama tramples the U.S. Constitution

Another member of ATS challenged me to show how Mr. Obama is trampling on the U.S. Constitution. I'm more than happy to oblige.

1. Appointment of Czars are unconstitutional

This violates Article II, Section 2. "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

These Czars are not heads of departments. However they have been granted powers of which the extent isn't fully known. As such, they function as "shadow" czars.

To quote the immortal : "Whachu talkin' about Willis?"

I understand where you are coming from here, but the fact is that the Czars only advises the President. Nothing unconstitutional or unlawful about it.

In the case of the pay Czar, while it is true that Feinberg's advice will hold a lot of weight in Obama's policy positioning. And everyone one knows that Obama has assigned the task of producing the policy to him and it is clear that Feinberg's word is close enough to the President to be considered as authoritative, it is nothing more than advice.

Obama is the one who will ultimately decide on the policy orders.

Please contemplate the part I have emboldened in the extract of your post above and its application in the context of this thread. While you are contemplating, notice that there are three groups of employers that the Constitution is allowing Congress to grant hiring authority for 'inferior officers'.

One of those is the 'President alone', another is the 'courts of law ', and the third is 'heads of departments'. You rightly note that Obama is not a 'head of department' and therefore cannot hire freely due to that allowance, nor is he a 'court of law'.

But he is the 'President Alone', and Congress can give him authority to hire 'inferior officers' without asking their permission. In other words it is giving the President the power to appoint his own advisors.

Continental Congress 09 is going on right now! I found a live webcast: Only way I see us saving the Constitution is to band in support of this

www.patriotnewsnetwork.org...

This is on from November 11 - 22, 2009 Broadcast Live Via the Webcast from 8am-5pm (Central Time) every day