Obama had his campaigm email supporters to get them to flood talk radio and
TV shows where people were critizing Obama,to deny the opposing opinions to
be aired.He asked the Justice Department to prosecute the NRA for running
ads showing Obama's anti-gun record.He got Missouri officials to use their
official powers to go after people whose opinions he didn't like.Obama
favors bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine".
Obama claimed to "support the Second Amendment",yet didn't sign the Heller
amicus brief as other DemocRATs did.He first said he believed DC was OK to
ban guns,then reversed himself after the USSC ruled in favor of Heller.
I don't think he reversed himself. His position is (paraphrasing) "Local
communities should have a right to tailor laws to fit their own
The plain meaning of his position is that, while the 2nd Amendment provides
a right to keep and bear arms, a city should have a right to restrict - or
even eliminate - guns due to a compelling social need.
As a putative constitutional law expert, he should know that impinging on a
constitutional right carries a high burden. It doesn't matter if the
majority in a city doesn't like Jehovah Witnesses - the city can't ban the
church. While the constitution says the accused should have access to a
lawyer, a state can't prohibit legal representation to child molesters just
because it's a compelling social goal to do whatever's necessary to get them
off the street.
## Oh boy, you've really opened a can of creepy things. Obama and the 2nd
* While in the Illinois Senate, he voted to ban several hundred common
* He endorsed a ban on ALL handguns,
* As an Illinois senator, he voted to allow prosecution of homeowners
defending their homes with firearms,
* He voted to increase taxation of ammunition and firearms by 500%,
* As a US Senator, he voted to ban virtually all common rifle ammunition,
* He is on record as opposing all right-to-carry laws. (48 states have
However, in 2006, he voted in the U.S. Senate to prohibit gun confiscation
in an emergency (i.e., Katrina). This is his only known unequivocal pro-gun
position, vote, or utterance.
Here's what he recently said regarding the Heller decision:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an
individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right
does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the
exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private
property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that
determine how you can use it."
He's correct in that state and local government can constrain a
Constitutional right. But when they do, they must follow the "strict
scrutiny" standard. Government can prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded
theatre or the use of a sound truck at midnight, but it can't curtail all
speech nor all political functions.
In the case to which he referred, D.C. vs. Heller, the District prohibited
ownership of ALL handguns. By no standard is this a 'reasonable
restriction,' and the United States Supreme Court said so.
As for the 1st Amendment, the leadership of the Congress is already making
noises about re-imposing the "fairness doctrine."
I don't think Obama has taken a position on that issue. We'll see.
You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush has
violated the Constitution.
If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is
an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar beliefs are wrong.
The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled to NONE
of the Constitutional protections afforded by the Constitutions (i.e., "In
all criminal proceedings..."). They are unlawful enemy combatants. Here are
some interesting facts about unlawful enemy combatants:
* They include saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and similar.
* No Geneva convention or protocol has procedures for dealing with them. How
they are handled is completely up to the belligerents involved.
* The president may designate anyone, even you, as an unlawful enemy
combatant and this designation cannot be gainsaid by legislative action or
* Under the normal rules of warfare, UECs may be taken out and summarily
* Our first UEC was Major Andre, caught behind our lines, wearing our
uniform. George Washington ordered him hanged.
Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the folks at
Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers, speedy trials,
etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be treated as criminals, or
members of a junior high soccer team, or vegetarians. UECs are not criminals
and they don't get treated like criminals.
By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People defending
their own land from oppression (as they see it.)
I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique"
interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of
blatant disregard for the rule of law. The scary thing is that I
suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all this
administration has done that we don't know about yet.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
regardless,if they had been caught by the British,they would have been
hanged as traitors.(as they were British citizens revolting against their
They risked everything to secure liberty for us.Bless them.
al-qaida and similar terrorists are NOT protecting their own countries.
Many of them are foreigners from elsewhere.
They are advancing their religion by force.
heck,Nate cannot even comprehend OBLs own statements on why they are at war
with the West.
Yep. But it's not my standard. The United States Supreme Court coined the
phrase "unlawful enemy combatant." How to deal with spys and the like
captured on the battlefield has been worked out over thousands of years of
military conflict and belligerents have converged, through countless
trial-and-error methodologies, on the most practical solution. It's called
the Black Flag.
The first intercepts of enemy electronic communications took place during
the Second War of Independence when both the Union and Confederacy tapped
the opposing side's telegraph lines. In every war since, reading the enemy's
mail, so to speak, has been an accepted and necessary practice.
Not only enemies, but potential enemies. We were working on, and broke,
Japanese codes long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. We had the diplomatic
code cracked by December 7th, 1941. Had we had equal success with the
Japanese naval code, we could have averted disaster.
Warrants are authorized by the 4th Amendment, but the president's authority
to wage war is covered by Article II of the same constitution. The courts
have unanimously said, over the centuries, that the president's war-making
responsibility trumps the 4th Amendment.
As for Cheney, there's an interesting Op-Ed in today's NY Times on the
constitutional role of the Vice President.
Fortunately, our sense of self-worth is not dependent on the approbation of
others. We do what we feel is right without regard to the reading on the
We guide the ship of state with a firm and sober hand on the rudder as
opposed to those who would rather be propelled by the fickle current into
Much of the claimed benefit of "the surge" is not directly related to it. The
Anbar awaking, and the policy of paying off of groups to stop them from shooting
at us have been a significant part of the improvement.
John McCains explanation of the connection between the awakening and the surge
display a confused understanding of the reality of the occupation of Iraq.
I agree that those who USE more government services should pay more. The
rich don't send their kids to public schools, use food stamps, appear at the
county hospital, end up in jail (as a rule), and so on.
The rich DO drive on public roads (or their driver does) and a few other
things, so they should pay SOME taxes.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.