More of Obamas Czars

Originally posted by FMF
How far into the process has the case reached?

So far I think Sonia Sotomayor is putting the czars inside the box. I do not have a good source for that though.

Originally posted by FMF
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?[/b]

Speaking of the Constitution, it appears that Sunstien wants to alter it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109529

He is proposing a second bill of rights, or I should say mandates. It really should be referred to as mandates since we all already have rights to these pursuits just like our Constitutionally protected right to property. However, the Constitution never implied that the government buy up all the property and divide it equally among us all nor should it regarding these "rights". So here is the list of mandates that the government should see to it that we have according to Sunstien.

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines or the nation
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
5. The right of every family to a decent home
6. The right to adequate medical care and the oppurtunity to achieve and enjoy good health
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
8. The right to a good education.


On one page in a book Sunstien wrote, he claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution", but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself." He then later aruges that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments"

Also Sunstien opened up a conference at Yale Law School in April 2005 entitled, "The Contintution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year. I have also heard that he wishes to abolish the right to bear arms. Now there is a shocker!! 😲

The Consitution is nothing more than an obstacle for statists like Sunstien. Hopefully he nor his cronies will ever have such powers to alter it.

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of the Constitution, it appears that Sunstien wants to alter it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109529

He is proposing a second bill of rights, or I should say mandates. It really should be referred to as mandates since we all already have rights to these pursuits just like our Constitutionally protected right to property. H ...[text shortened]... ch sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

What's this got to do with the assertion that czars are unconstitutional?

Originally posted by FMF
What's this got to do with the assertion that czars are unconstitutional?

In other words, what does it really matter what the Constitution says? After all, he wants to "interpret" it or "change" certain declarations within it to fit his agendas.

Originally posted by whodey
In other words, what does it really matter what the Constitution says? After all, he wants to "interpret" it or "change" certain declarations within it to fit his agendas.

What's wrong with seeking political and constitutional change?

Originally posted by whodey
what does it really matter what the Constitution says? After all, he wants to "interpret" it or "change" certain declarations within it to fit his agendas.

So let me summarize what you seem to be saying: the constitution has been effectively suspended because someone or other disagrees with you about it and they want to add stuff to it that will never get past the legislatures anyway.

Whodey, why can't you discuss these kinds of things seriously?

Originally posted by FMF
What's wrong with seeking political and constitutional change?

Of course, he has that right provided him by the Constitution. But until then they should respect the Constitution as is.
Having said that, I have a sneaking suspicsion that those who seek to change the Constitution have little repsect for it as law until it is changed the way they desire it to be.

In addition, the American people should be aware that Obama is surrounding himself with such men. Is this the road they wish to travel down?

As for his objective with health care, it seems he has almost accomplished this goal. Now he only has a hand full more to accomplish in order to empower Big Brother further in our lives.

For the life of me, I don't know why he did not include world peace as a "right". After all, it seems that the US government has taken upon itself the task of enforcing it around the world.

Originally posted by FMF
So let me summarize what you seem to be saying: the constitution has been effectively suspended because someone or other disagrees with you about it and they want to add stuff to it that will never get past the legislatures anyway.

Whodey, why can't you discuss these kinds of things seriously?

What I am saying is, it matters little if you violate the Constitution...that is if no one holds you accountable. Is anyone holding Obama accountable in regards to the czars? It appears some have made or are making the attempt as has been shown. The question is, will they win the power struggle?

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, he has that right provided him by the Constitution. But until then they should respect the Constitution as is.

So he has the right to seek to change the constitution, as the constitution affords him, but he does not have the right to disrespect the constitution by seeking to change it?

Why can't you just state your view clearly?

What lack of "respect" towards the Constitution are your referring to?

Originally posted by FMF
So he has the right to seek to change the constitution, as the constitution affords him, but he does not have the right to disrespect the constitution by seeking to change it?

Why can't you just state your view clearly?

What lack of "respect" towards the Constitution are your referring to?

In other words, before Obama decides to appoint a bunch of czars it might occur to him to first debate or consider the constitutionality of them. Has he done so with protest such as Senator Byrd in his own party? If so, I have not heard so much as a peep.

Originally posted by whodey
it matters little if you violate the Constitution...that is if no one holds you accountable. Is anyone holding Obama accountable in regards to the czars?

Maybe they have no case and that's why nothing is happening. Maybe the czars are simply not inconstitutional and no amount of fulmination will make it so unless a case is made and heard and decided upon.

It is increasingly apparent that you are personally unable to come to terms with anything you disagree with except by framing it as illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, genocidal, like the Nazis, like Stalin etc. etc.

Originally posted by FMF
What's this got to do with the assertion that czars are unconstitutional?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=The+Constitution+of+the+United+States%3A+A+Transcription

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/53280

There is more stuff out there if you really are interested. I doubt that anyone will chalange Barrack Builderberger Obama on it, but it doesn't change the fact he is not following the constitution.

Originally posted by whodey
In other words, before Obama decides to appoint a bunch of czars it might occur to him to first debate or consider the constitutionality of them.

So you're saying Obama should have taken the case that his czars are unconstitutional before the Supreme Court himself?

You are seriously saying that Obama administration did not "consider the constitutionality" of czars? And this is based on what evidence: the fact that you disgree with them?

Originally posted by joe beyser
I doubt that anyone will chalange Barrack Builderberger Obama on it, but it doesn't change the fact he is not following the constitution.

Yes thanks. And this is the last American president. And there will be forced innoculations. And American NWO troops will fire on U.S. citizens. And Obama is comparable to Hitler. Blah blah blah.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes thanks. And this is the last American president. And there will be forced innoculations. And American NWO troops will fire on U.S. citizens. And Obama is comparable to Hitler. Blah blah blah.

Now your getting it FMF. You must not have gotten your shipment of fish heads or you realized that you are just being used to later be thrown away by your masters. Welcome aboard!! You know that corproratism is helping drive this thing? Early on anyway.