Georgia Court Ruled Against Obama

[Weapon X]

Not the same. A little more research perhaps?

At the heart of the matter is Obama’s decision to override his own lap dogs in the Justice Department and, while the Senate remains in pro forma session, void the requirement of Senate confirmation. John Yoo, no softie when it comes to executive power, explained: “Any private party can challenge this nomination by refusing to obey any regulation issued by the agency as the act of an unconstitutional officer.’ So what’s the basis for Obama’s decision to wreck legal havoc?

Let's see the excuse for this one.

My link

You base your opinion on another opinion?? Thats OK, but its the same thing as prior presidents, the only difference is that its Obama a democrat president.

Like I said its constitutional, as stated before, I gave you the source in the constitution. you give an opinion, and we know the saying about opinions, we all have one.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Weapon X

[sportfisher]

You have a problem with word interpretation Doc! I always say reading is fundamental!

Again, reading is fundamental.

Maybe awaken a nation.... Sleeping dogs have awaken. Demonizing continues. The division has always laid there beneath the pretentious ones.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DinarMillionaire]

You base your opinion on another opinion?? Thats OK, but its the same thing as prior presidents, the only difference is that its Obama a democrat president.

Like I said its constitutional, as stated before, I gave you the source in the constitution. you give an opinion, and we know the saying about opinions, we all have one.

Yes, you gave the source in the Constitution. And now that it doesn't fit your 'OPINION', you get all bent out of shape.

Do you know the difference between opinions and facts stated in an opinion? FACT: The Senate was in PRO FORMA SESSION. Since you obviously don't know what that means, I'll provide it to you.

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

What happens when the president makes a recess appointment when the Senate is not technically on recess? Explain how it fits your quote of the Constitution.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I would have to say Obama made the appointments UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. (According to the Constitution, you yourself provided.)

If Obama had made his appointments while the Senate was in recess, this would not be worth discussion. You are losing credibility when you try to excuse the inexcusable.

Go ahead neg me again, I've got plenty of pluses.

[Weapon X]

The pro forma sessions are a sham because the senate isn’t really conducting any business during them, and there’s no intention that any business actually get conducted. In fact, the resolution that each chamber passes to cover the pro forma sessions states that no business shall be conducted during the session. This is meant in part to assure members that something won’t be done by “unanimous consent” behind their backs while they are out of town. Additionally, relying on the Adjournments Clause, one could argue that the lack of a consent from both Houses Of Congress means that there isn’t really a recess at all. The one problem with that argument is that the Constitution says nothing about how long a recess has to be for the appointment power to be effective:

How long a ”recess” must be to be actually a recess, a question here as in the pocket veto area, is uncertain. 3 O. L. C. 311, 314 (1979). A ”recess,” however, may be merely ”constructive,” as when a regular session succeeds immediately upon a special session. It was this kind of situation that gave rise to the once famous Crum incident. See 3 W. Willoughby, op. cit., n.294, 1508-1509.

On the other side of the argument, though, its worth noting that the Obama Administration has previously taken the position before the Supreme Court that a “recess” had to be longer than the three days permitted by Article I, Section 5, Clause 4:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

Additionally, when the Clinton Administration looked at this issue in 1993, its lawyers determined that the pro forma sessions procedure prevented the use of the Recess Appointment power:

The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This Adjournments Clause provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ….” Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated: “If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. … It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant. …Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.”

It’s worth noting, of course, that the Recess Appointment clause is in many respects a relic of the era in which the Constitution was drafted and the amount of time it took to travel from one part of the country to where ever the Capitol was located would take days, if not longer depending on the time of year. From the beginning of the Republic and continuing up until the early part of the 20th Century, Congress would often be out of session for months at a time and the need to make appointments would often arise quite regularly. Arguably, the Recess Appointment clause was never intended to empower the President to put into office a nominee that the Senate had refused to confirm. However, the Constitution does not say that, nor does it define what a proper recess for the purpose of the Recess Appointment clause actually is, which means the phrase is rather open ended an open to interpretation. And that is where this entire legal analysis must come to an end, really.

This issue has not been dealt with by the Courts on many occassions. Most recently, it occurred in 2004 when President Bush used a Recess Appointment to name William J. Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawsuits were filed challenging the appointment, but the challenge was ultimately unsuccessful:

During the presidency of George W. Bush, Democrats actively filibustered the confirmation of federal appeals court nominee William Pryor, largely because of the conservative reputation he gained while serving as the attorney general of Alabama.

A Republican-led Senate coalition fell seven votes shy of invoking cloture to end this filibuster. Following this defeat, Bush circumvented the Senate by recess appointing Pryor, during a ten-day Senate recess in February 2004. Outraged Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit that challenged the legality of Pryor’s appointment. Kennedy asserted that it was unconstitutional to make recess appointments during the short intrasession recesses that occur during a congressional session. Eight months later, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Kennedy’s challenge, ruling that the Constitution “does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause”

The Supreme Court refused to take up the appeal of the case, and the decision still stands as good law. So, as a matter of law, it does not appear that the President acted unconstitutionally at all. Whether he’ll pay a political price for it is, of course, a different question. There will no doubt be legal challenges filed over these appointments, but it seems unlikely to me that whatever Court happens to hear them is going to go any further than the 11th Circuit did just 7 years ago. For one thing, there is no hard-and-fast definition of “recess” in the Constitution. For another, the Courts simply aren’t going to involve themselves in what is ultimately a political dispute between the two other branches of government.

Here is proof that congress is in fact in recess Pro forma Recess, recess with out recess

Dec 19 2011

Senate Republicans to President Obama: No More Recess Appointments for NLRB Nominees

WASHINGTON – In a letter sent today, all 47 Senate Republicans called on President Obama to not recess appointment Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Last week, it was announced that President Obama withdrew the nomination of NLRB Member Craig Becker, who was recess appointed after he failed to be confirmed by the Senate, after a controversial tenure on the Board. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spearheaded the letter.

In the letter, the Senators write that “Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance.” The Senators noted that the “controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board and, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.”

The Senators particularly urged the President not to attempt to appoint Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin during the brief mandatory adjournment of the Senate in between sessions of Congress as some of the President’s allies have publicly suggested he do with other nominations. According to the Senators, doing so would “set a dangerous precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees” and that such a maneuver “could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.”

The full text of the letter is below:

December 19, 2011

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC

RE: NLRB Nominations

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to urge you not to undermine the Senate’s advice and consent role by attempting to place your recently announced nominees to National Labor Relations Board, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, in those positions through recess appointments. Moreover, we urge to instead allow for a full and thorough review of their qualifications through regular order in the Senate.

Appointments to the NLRB have traditionally been made through prior agreement of both parties to ensure that any group of nominees placed on the board represents an appropriate political and philosophical balance. Indeed, the very statutory design of the Board is meant to ensure a basic level of bipartisanship in the appointment of Members. As you are undoubtedly aware, appointments to Board that depart from this tradition have resulted in some of the most contentious, divisive struggles we face in the Senate. Your controversial recess appointment of NLRB Member Craig Becker is an example of an NLRB nominee having been appointed over the objection of the Senate and the result of that decision has been unending controversy throughout Member Becker’s entire term on the Board, which has undermined the credibility of the entire NLRB.

We urge you to avoid attempting to give your latest NLRB nominees - Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin - recess appointments at any point, especially during the mandatory adjournment between sessions of the 112th Congress, which will undoubtedly be very brief. While some have publicly suggested doing so would be an appropriate course of action with regard to other nominations, it would, at the very least, set a dangerous

precedent that would most certainly be exploited in future cases to further marginalize the Senate’s role in confirming nominees and could needlessly provoke a constitutional conflict between the Senate and the White House.

We are certain that we all want to avoid any further conflict over additional recess appointments to the NLRB. It would be especially unfortunate if the Senate was never given an opportunity to fully explore their qualifications and suitability to be Members of the NLRB through a careful and deliberative hearings and confirmation process.

Thank you for your attention regarding this important matter.

Sincerely,

# # #

If they were not in recess why go ahead and write a letter, dates 12/19/2011 asking the president not to use the recess appontmemnt??? because they know they would be in "recess" and dont have a legal/constitutional leg to stand on.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Weapon X

[mogirl463]

Yeah, we rock, but your Michigan State sure put it to our Dawgs yesterday

Sorry Uni...we just couldn't help ourselves....Virginia Tech got slapped by us too.... :woot: :woot:

Here we go again, give up guys the south lost the war. Why didn't you get enough votes in the last election to defeat our President. Let's move on and see it you can defeat him this November, which of course you won't. How long are you have nots going to let the 1% trick you. Oh I forgot, it's all about color, isn't it? It's ok you can admit it, I can tell where you stand.

Clarence, don't you think that this whole "COLOR" thing has gone on long enough??? I sure do, because it seems to me that whenever there is an integrity question about a person of color, the whole race and discrimination card comes up! I didn't see anyone screaming the color issue when Clinton or Bush were pulled up on the carpet for things they did or didn't do. But they were at least proven Natural Born American citizens and very eligible to hold the office of President, not saying that I agree with the job they did, but the qualifications were brought forth for proof. Big O on the other hand, hasn't been able to prove anything and yet, the Constitution was changed to allow for that....WTH kind of crap is that??? It doesn't matter if his skin color is orange or green, he NEVER should have been allowed to run, let alone be elected.....Or was he really the candidate with the most votes??? America will never know because if they changed the wording of the Constitution to allow him to take office, why couldn't they tack on a few votes to give him the office.....JMO.

[tarsi]

Awesome WeaponX as usual you respond with Real facts and with dignity and respect, unlike others that only are very combative, and hateful because its obvious they don't have a leg to stand on....... I can only assume that instead of the Truth setting them free, it drives them into a blind rage( Thats usually fueiled by Hate) which makes it so so very apparent to the rest of the world, I wonder if they really can't see it themselves, or are they just at the point they don't care to hide it anylonger? Hmmmm.

[divemaster5734]

Why is it that you claim this move is uncosntitutinal? Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution says:

Now where was your wrath, ire, pissed off attitude, when prior presidents have used the recess appointments?? And just to clear your mind here are the numbers

Souce CRS report

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, if you are going to make an outrageous claim please back it up with facts, as it is you are merely repeating republican BS and bad BS at that,

It is amazing how some "truths" are so totally distorted.

Yes, the POTUS is allowed to make appointments during recess.

The problem is congress has not recessed yet, and THAT is what makes bo's actions illegal.

Congress has 3 days to convene before it is considered a recess.

They have had someone gavel in, and obummer STILL made the appointments.

Why am I upset?

Because the only way his supporters can say anything is to twist the truth.

[DinarMillionaire]

Doesn't Democrat Harry Reid, as majority leader, have some control over whether any pro forma sessions are called in the first place? If so, why didn’t he simply refuse to let any be called? That would have strengthened Obama’s argument that the Senate’s in a true recess, not merely some sort of de facto recess where pro forma sessions don’t really count. (Strengthened, but not necessarily vindicated, that is.)

According to Democrat Harry Reid, recess appointments can be blocked by a pro forma session when Congress objects to the appointee personally, but when they object to the appointee, only because they object to his agency, that’s undue obstructionism that somehow changes the entire constitutional scheme. That is to say, even though the procedures are exactly the same in both cases, it’s the motivation articulated by the appointee’s opponents in Congress that decides the constitutional question. If you believe that, then you also believe that had the GOP said, “The consumer board’s fine, we just don’t like Cordray,” Reid would be denouncing Obama’s power grab too. And by the way, where does this standard leave Reid with respect to the three NLRB appointees?

It will probably end up in court anyway. That doesn’t mean a court will end up ruling, it might be dismissed as a “political question,” but someone will most likely sue.

Really? Your going by a written letter to make your case that the Senate wasn't in pro forma recess? That's priceless!

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama planned to recess appoint Richard Cordray to be director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). However, Republicans immediately cried foul about the move. They argue that because the holiday break has been broken up by brief pro forma sessions, the Senate is not in recess and the appointment is illegitimate. My link

[tampa1000]

Great post!

[sxsess]

It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

Clarence Fort = Moron

[tandy]

I'll probably get in hot water here but we have drifted far from the original post...we have gotten back into the bashing and mud slinging everytime politics and religion is mentioned,,,we are all conditioned, influenced and even programmed by external forces be it parents, peers, media or something else....if we were raised within a religious group, political leaning or social circle we tend to stay in and believe along the same lines of influence...had we been born and raised in the Middle East we most likely would be Muslims, if we had been born in the jungles of the Amazon Basin we probably would be running around in the nude...the point is we will never agree on a lot of things due to our diverse backgrounds, how we were raised, where we were born, etc... our opinions and beliefs are not always correct (however I believe mine is...lol) whether we like to admit it or not....we are not always correct nor is the ones we debate...but we need to try and visualize why the other person doesn't agree with our "correct point of view"...then if they don't agree, so what.... no sense in destroying them (yeah I know it's fun sometime but it doesn't seem to accomplish anything) excuse my worthless post, I was bored this morning and haven't had my coffee yet!!! cheers

[DinarMillionaire]

Clarence, don't you think that this whole "COLOR" thing has gone on long enough??? I sure do, because it seems to me that whenever there is an integrity question about a person of color, the whole race and discrimination card comes up! I didn't see anyone screaming the color issue when Clinton or Bush were pulled up on the carpet for things they did or didn't do. But they were at least proven Natural Born American citizens and very eligible to hold the office of President, not saying that I agree with the job they did, but the qualifications were brought forth for proof. Big O on the other hand, hasn't been able to prove anything and yet, the Constitution was changed to allow for that....WTH kind of crap is that??? It doesn't matter if his skin color is orange or green, he NEVER should have been allowed to run, let alone be elected.....Or was he really the candidate with the most votes??? America will never know because if they changed the wording of the Constitution to allow him to take office, why couldn't they tack on a few votes to give him the office.....JMO.

mogirl, don't worry, the Constitution hasn't been changed, yet. (It takes 26 states to amend the Constitution) Although the Democrats have been trying, a lot lately. (Wonder why that is?) The question to be answered is... Which precedence will the high court hold on the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"? As you may have read a couple of debates by myself and WeaponX, Neither he nor I can give an absolute on the outcome and it won't be decided by him nor me. There is the upcoming court case in Georgia regarding Obama's eligibility. We will just have to wait and see what comes from that.

[grand pubah]

Tandy, I hate to mention this but I honestly didn't believe I had been influenced by anything until your last post but now that you mention it I have wanted on occasion to run around naked....wonder if I might be from the Amazon?

I hear the women there are pretty tough and some of them actually found a way to live on the moon

[divemaster5734]

I'll probably get in hot water here

(yeah I know it's fun sometime but it doesn't seem to accomplish anything) excuse my worthless post, I was bored this morning and haven't had my coffee yet!!! cheers

Naw, I appreciate the reality check.

I sometimes lose sight of the fact every single response belongs to a real live human being with just as much right to live and be free as I do.

I do get caught up in the moment and say things I regret later.

While the content has wandered a bit, the subject is still basically the same, and I still dont understand why obama gets to use a different version of the constitution than anyone else.

Thats the core issue, he believes he is so special he doesn't have to follow any laws and can make up his own rules.

You are correct, there should not be any nastiness.

I promise to stop if they promise to quit lying....

[mojack]

Naw, I appreciate the reality check.

I sometimes lose sight of the fact every single response belongs to a real live human being with just as much right to live and be free as I do.

I do get caught up in the moment and say things I regret later.

While the content has wandered a bit, the subject is still basically the same, and I still dont understand why obama gets to use a different version of the constitution than anyone else.

Thats the core issue, he believes he is so special he doesn't have to follow any laws and can make up his own rules.

You are correct, there should not be any nastiness.

I promise to stop if they promise to quit lying....

I agree with Tandy - that there are different opinions because of the different walks of life - and what we have witnessed and learned during our education.

Frankly, these types of arguments occur during each president's reign.

divemaster5734... and I still dont understand why obama gets to use a different version of the constitution than anyone else.

Thats the core issue, he believes he is so special he doesn't have to follow any laws and can make up his own rules.

Could be you have more invested in politic information during this particular president's extent in office. Could be that everyone has amplified their knowledge due to the internet (email, blogs). Or could be you've just forgotten the previous White House elite type situations. All I'm saying is it is what it is and have been.

Edited January 5, 2012 by mojack

[DinarMillionaire]

I'll probably get in hot water here but we have drifted far from the original post..

After seeing your post Tandy, Your the voice of reason today. So, I went back to see where I could improve on my writings and saw that I said some things written in haste and could have approached things with a little more tact. Thanks for shedding the light.

mogirl, don't worry, the Constitution hasn't been changed, yet. (It takes 26 states to amend the Constitution)

My bad, it's 3/4 of the States or 38 states to amend the Constitution. (Glad I re-read this stuff.) Excuse my brain-toot.

Naw, I appreciate the reality check.

I sometimes lose sight of the fact every single response belongs to a real live human being with just as much right to live and be free as I do.

I do get caught up in the moment and say things I regret later.

While the content has wandered a bit, the subject is still basically the same, and I still dont understand why obama gets to use a different version of the constitution than anyone else.

Thats the core issue, he believes he is so special he doesn't have to follow any laws and can make up his own rules.

You are correct, there should not be any nastiness.

I promise to stop if they promise to quit lying....

:lol: Sorry, but that was funny!

[sportfisher]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Edited January 6, 2012 by sportfisher

[sportfisher]

I agree with Tandy - that there are different opinions because of the different walks of life - and what we have witnessed and learned during our education.

Frankly, these types of arguments occur during each president's reign.

Could be you have more invested in politic information during this particular president's extent in office. Could be that everyone has amplified their knowledge due to the internet (email, blogs). Or could be you've just forgotten the previous White House elite type situations. All I'm saying is it is what it is and have been.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[divemaster5734]

I agree with Tandy - that there are different opinions because of the different walks of life - and what we have witnessed and learned during our education.

Frankly, these types of arguments occur during each president's reign.

Could be you have more invested in politic information during this particular president's extent in office. Could be that everyone has amplified their knowledge due to the internet (email, blogs). Or could be you've just forgotten the previous White House elite type situations. All I'm saying is it is what it is and have been.

I agree, every president for the last 45 years has not been honest, but does that mean we are to just meekly accept whatever they decide to subject us to just because they all abuse according to their own personal need?

So, that means just because a drug addict continues to rob people for drug money we should just leave them alone because it is what it is...

Or let a stinking pedophile do that evil ?

I can go on, but you get the message, who says we need to force ourselves into just grabbing our ankles just because the last dirtbag got away with it?

You haven't known me long enough, I hated Bush just as much as I loath obummer.

Probably more, because as least bo quit acting like a Christian, Bush used Christian speak in order to continue the deception, I can only hope there's a special hot place waiting for him.

It is time to end the abuse.

America was not designed to have a monarchy, elite rulers lording over the commoners, or to be socialist.

Until the internet it was much easier to deceive the public, that's why they got away with it for 100 years.

Just because they got away with lying for 100 years doesn't mean we have to allow them to keep it up.

All I'm saying is it is time for Americans to stand up to the truth.

That means getting rid of establishment politicians from both "sides".

[Markinsa]

So how about we follow the law of the land and quit making excuses because the previous President did this or that and no one said anything? When are we citizens going to hold those we elect accountable for what they do in office?

-

[Weapon X]

Awesome WeaponX as usual you respond with Real facts and with dignity and respect, unlike others that only are very combative, and hateful because its obvious they don't have a leg to stand on....... I can only assume that instead of the Truth setting them free, it drives them into a blind rage( Thats usually fueiled by Hate) which makes it so so very apparent to the rest of the world, I wonder if they really can't see it themselves, or are they just at the point they don't care to hide it anylonger? Hmmmm.

I have no reason to name call or disrespect because we differ in opinion, I place my facts dinarmillionaire places his facts and we compare we may not agree on what comes out but we do learn from each other point of view.

[TPSprayduster]

I'll probably get in hot water here but we have drifted far from the original post...we have gotten back into the bashing and mud slinging everytime politics and religion is mentioned,,,we are all conditioned, influenced and even programmed by external forces be it parents, peers, media or something else....if we were raised within a religious group, political leaning or social circle we tend to stay in and believe along the same lines of influence...had we been born and raised in the Middle East we most likely would be Muslims, if we had been born in the jungles of the Amazon Basin we probably would be running around in the nude...the point is we will never agree on a lot of things due to our diverse backgrounds, how we were raised, where we were born, etc... our opinions and beliefs are not always correct (however I believe mine is...lol) whether we like to admit it or not....we are not always correct nor is the ones we debate...but we need to try and visualize why the other person doesn't agree with our "correct point of view"...then if they don't agree, so what.... no sense in destroying them (yeah I know it's fun sometime but it doesn't seem to accomplish anything) excuse my worthless post, I was bored this morning and haven't had my coffee yet!!! cheers

I totally agree Tandy, thank you for your post.

[Usaok]

He is the devil . Let this tyrant go back to Iran , he will blend a lot better there ..... He is destroying all that we know ..... Vote him outtttttttttt. An old marine ..

[TPSprayduster]

He is the devil . Let this tyrant go back to Iran , he will blend a lot better there ..... He is destroying all that we know ..... Vote him outtttttttttt. An old marine ..

Marine, how do you know he is devil? Has he burst into flames on TV? He has not horns nor a tail. Can you give please provide us with some evidence?

if not, you need to proceed to the pit and await your Senior Drill Instructor provide you with some incentive PT for posting without all the facts!!!!!

[mojack]

I agree, every president for the last 45 years has not been honest, but does that mean we are to just meekly accept whatever they decide to subject us to just because they all abuse according to their own personal need?

So, that means just because a drug addict continues to rob people for drug money we should just leave them alone because it is what it is...

Or let a stinking pedophile do that evil ?

I can go on, but you get the message, who says we need to force ourselves into just grabbing our ankles just because the last dirtbag got away with it?

You haven't known me long enough, I hated Bush just as much as I loath obummer.

Probably more, because as least bo quit acting like a Christian, Bush used Christian speak in order to continue the deception, I can only hope there's a special hot place waiting for him.

It is time to end the abuse.

America was not designed to have a monarchy, elite rulers lording over the commoners, or to be socialist.

Until the internet it was much easier to deceive the public, that's why they got away with it for 100 years.

Just because they got away with lying for 100 years doesn't mean we have to allow them to keep it up.

All I'm saying is it is time for Americans to stand up to the truth.

That means getting rid of establishment politicians from both "sides".

Enough with the weak analogies and your constant pouting!

Did my statement suggest past presidents actions justify it all? NO NO Hell NO! I replied to your POST 89! I suggested you're perhaps more emotionally engaged in this president's term. Therefore, you see more and hear more.

Your Quote ...and I still dont understand why obama gets to use a different version of the constitution than anyone else.

Thats the core issue, he believes he is so special he doesn't have to follow any laws and can make up his own rules.

Read more:

The internet doesn't reveal anything --- people who control blogs with unsubstantiated news is tainting and dividing the country.

BTW: How does a Christian act? Give something hard and definite. When it comes down to it, Christian is as hard to describe as a natural born citizen. Besides the simple facts of a Christian, you will only give your opinions of a Christian.

Everyone believes they're right and have something good to say that's convincing to the other side. I don't think that's happening here lately.

So how about we follow the law of the land and quit making excuses because the previous President did this or that and no one said anything? When are we citizens going to hold those we elect accountable for what they do in office?

-

I hope that's not directed at my comment... I stated these arguments are nothing new.