As long as his position was that he didn't think the law was constitutional, seems fine. He did take an oath of office to defend the constitution - not the judges' opinions of it.Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
|
|
|
|
|
As long as his position was that he didn't think the law was constitutional, seems fine. He did take an oath of office to defend the constitution - not the judges' opinions of it.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Like he's been doing that one.
Surprise...I think Newt is right!
link
GINGRICH GIVES OBAMA 'IMPEACHMENT' WARNING
Yeah, but he also told a lie.
“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.
The oath of Office:
Seems to me that Obama is upholding his oath. I guess Gingrich thinks that only the Supreme Court is entitled to evaluate Constitutionality. Gingrich's opinion is what should frighten everyone."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
That's like Bush deciding he didn't like Roe vs Wade and then telling DOJ not to enforce it and then states could do what they want. I wonder how that would go over.I don't agree. I think Newt's Palin analogy/example and ddgravy's Bush "what if" analogy of just ditching Roe vs Wade apply and fly in the face of Obama and his
hypocrisy
.
You agree with Newt that a President should be obligated to enforce laws that he believes are unconstitutional?What about the oath of office?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
So only the Supreme Court can review Constitutionality? And the POTUS & Congress can do what they please regardless of what the Constitution says, especially if the SC doesn't make a ruling (which in turn serves as a ruling)? Because that is what you imply by agreeing with Newt.
Or does it bother you so much that Obama did the right thing, that you/ddgravy/Newt had to concoct some fictitious hypothetical and propose what Obama/Democrats would say/do in the hypothetical to try to hang them for being hypocritical IN YOUR HYPOTHETICAL?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
The Palin and Bush analogy's were exact matches. What really bothers you per those?
I think it would be fine if they did that - at least it would be fine in that they are upholding their oath of office.
What I think is ridiculous is that Newt is trying to turn this back on the Dems, even though Obama did the right thing, by proposing something that NEVER happened and proposing WHAT the Dems would say/do and then CALLING THEM HYPOCRITES, when they never actually did what he said they would do.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
He speaks the truth vs what the liberals/dems would have done if Pres. Bush or a President Palin did the same type of thing to what would be considered a "liberal" law like Roe vs Wade. It would be everywhere 24/7 on every TV, radio and newspaper where Dem. congressmen and senators would be screaming for impeachment.
Right? If you're a flaming gaywad, I guess you think it's "right."
But, is there any question about ole Barry? He hired a flaming gaywad as social security for the WH. Woo-hoo! Of course, this will mean Barry will be spending more time "at home" and less time out in public embarrassing the USA.
Flaming gaywad? Really? You make it very difficult to respond without feeling like I'm arguing with my 5 yr. old nephew.
If you don't agree with it, fine. That's your opinion.
The government should have never been involved in this matter in the first place. Period.
But they are...so we have to deal with it.
So Guiss, if, let's say Romney gets elected. Let's say that he says he feels Roe V. Wade was decided wrongly and he doesn't feel the right to privacy insures the right to choose, you would be okay with him refusing to defend it (and throw it back to the states)?
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Roe v. Wade has already been decided by the Supreme Court, so the federal government's defense of that holding isn't nearly as important as the federal government's defense of a law being challenged for the first time.
A better example would be the individual mandate contained in Obamacare. If a Republican is elected President in 2012 and decides to not defend the mandate before the Supreme Court, how will the left react?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
