Gun Control Under Obama

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3343 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying? Click on the link and find the word "militia." Then come back and apologize.
The article is about the Second Amendment. To what else in that amendment do the words "well regulated" apply?
You can keep on playing all the "lawyer games" you want, but I think it's already been shown that you do it poorly...because you aren't a lawyer.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3344 Jan 26, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that your numbers may be off. I believe that 8-9% of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion--with the rest being birth control, routine gynecological care, education, breast screenings and the like.
Not that it matters, because Federal dollars exclusively fund the non-abortion activities. Abortions are funded through other sourcesp--with some pretty stringent financial firewalls.
My numbers are not wrong. A new set came out last week from an overall 24 or 18 month study. Just under 334,000 Planned Parenthood abortions per year. Over a third of one million children murdered by a federally funded agency.

As far as taxpayers money not funding abortions...BS.

Remember Acorn?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3345 Jan 26, 2013
In the case of Obama’s appointments, there is no disagreement that Congress was not formally recessed since neither the House nor the Senate had passed a resolution to end the session.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3346 Jan 26, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that Jews should get a rebate on any portion of taxes that they pay every buy pork? The US actually buys a lot of agricultural products, one way and another.
Do your research. MANY prisons, including federal I believe, are prohibited from serving any kind of pork to the inmates. Not because of the Jewish inmates, but to cater to the Muslims. The pig farmers in your own state are very unhappy with this.
Adif understanding

United States

#3347 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
In the case of Obama’s appointments, there is no disagreement that Congress was not formally recessed since neither the House nor the Senate had passed a resolution to end the session.
Yep.. and Obama just said, if they won't do what I want constitutionally, I will just disguise my intentions and go around them and the constitution.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3348 Jan 26, 2013
...But the Power Grab Continues

http://tinyurl.com/b8xcwcx

Thumbing its nose at the federal courts, which ruled yesterday that President Obama’s "recess" appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year were unconstitutional (because they were appointed during a non-existent "recess"), the Obama Administration has declared that it will not remedy constitutional violations identified by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Noel Canning v. NLRB.

Instead, it will continue to defend 200 other NLRB decisions issued by the invalidly appointed NLRB members as if those decisions were valid. It also will disregard the ruling’s binding ramifications for another appointment President Obama made the same day he appointed the NLRB members, which is invalid for the same reason — the “recess” appointment of Richard Cordray to be Director of a powerful agency located in Washington, D.C., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The D.C. Circuit ruled that there was no “recess” on that particular day for purposes of the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, so Cordray’s appointment was constitutionally invalid, just as the NLRB appointments made on that same day were invalid.(Cordray’s “recess” appointment during a non-existent recess is one of the constitutional violations cited in State National Bank of Big Spring v. Geithner, another court case pending in Washington, D.C. That case also challenges provisions of the law that created the CFPB, the Dodd-Frank Act, which Obama signed into law in 2010)....
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3349 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"You lie!" -- Joe Wilson
It's no more of an intellectual response when you say it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3350 Jan 26, 2013
WiseAmerican wrote:
<quoted text> Ahhh, and there the truth is in the response...'they have the latest, greatest cellphones and great fake nail manicures'. Oh, poor me! Why do 'they' get to live like a human being and have stuff? They should be eating gruel and bread with water, instead of driving a Lexus and wearing fur coats. Oh, poor me.
My Godfather told me when I was about 10 and admiring his ring, "If you work hard, you have nice things." He was a judge.

WA. FYI, I have a Lexus, and a Buick and a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Mine. My husband has a 65 Mustang and his Toyota Tundra. All fully paid for.

I grow my own fingernails. For a brief time, I got them silk wrapped, but could not sitting there listening to the inane girl chattering about things I could care less about.

I would not wear real fur because I am a bit of an animal activisit, Not PETA, but still. But, I have, in the past owned a mink jacket, BIG WHOOP!

The only tattoo I'll ever allow is D N R right across my chest.

There is no 'poor me' in my life. I've been very lucky, particularly with the parents I was born to.

The whole point here is, I NEVER TOOK ONE CENT OF GOVERNMENT HANDOUT NOR HAS MY HUSBAND. I work, always have, my husband works very hard and we both pay the taxes that support these government entitlement programs that are going to put this nation into a grand recession or depression.

They don't need to be eating gruel. But they should not be selling their EBT dollars at 3 to 1 to buy thier drugs or whatever. And they absolutely should not be receiving huge EIC credits and almost treble what the have had withheld in fed tax.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3351 Jan 26, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>The article is about the Second Amendment. To what else in that amendment do the words "well regulated" apply?
You can keep on playing all the "lawyer games" you want, but I think it's already been shown that you do it poorly...because you aren't a lawyer.
You need to stick to "international relations." Any other words in the second amendment you want to ignore?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3352 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, unemployed people getting money from the government for the support of their existence should be living a lifestyle that is less than people who are working and providing for their own existence. To do otherwise due to government hand outs encourages both that they stay on the government teat and be forever a ward of the state as well as enrage the population that is trying to do it on their own.
Do you think it is odd that welfare recipients think they will take a pay cut if they get a real job?
They do and they are breeding generation upon generatin that will live the same way. Except the country is out of money.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3353 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no more of an intellectual response when you say it.
Truthful. That's all it is.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3354 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Truthful. That's all it is.
Fair enough. What in the post you responded to with "you lie" was a lie?

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3355 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stick to "international relations." Any other words in the second amendment you want to ignore?
One thing is certain. I understand international relations better than Clinton and Obama, and I understand law better than you.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3356 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. What in the post you responded to with "you lie" was a lie?
Spoonfeeding commence:
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
...I was responding to a poster's claim that President Obama had brazenly acted against the constitution. That is simply not true....
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3357 Jan 26, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>One thing is certain. I understand international relations better than Clinton and Obama, and I understand law better than you.
All of that with a mere bachelors degree.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3358 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoonfeeding commence:
<quoted text>
That is a true statement. Even your boy Karl Monday concedes that. Try again.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3359 Jan 26, 2013
Oops. Not Karl Monday. Adif.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3360 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a true statement. Even your boy Karl Monday concedes that. Try again.
Congress was not in recess.
Therefore, Obama acted in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

From the opinion:

"The power of a written constitution lies in its words. It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government."
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3361 Jan 26, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress was not in recess.
Therefore, Obama acted in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
From the opinion:
"The power of a written constitution lies in its words. It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government."
Oh boy. To make the argument that Obama flagrantly violated the constitution (which is what the discussion you butted into was about) he would have had to have made the appointments in violation of PRIOR court interpretations. He clearly did not. Citing the case that CHANGED the rules does not support the assertion on the floor. That case changed the rules. Do you understand that?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3362 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh boy. To make the argument that Obama flagrantly violated the constitution (which is what the discussion you butted into was about) he would have had to have made the appointments in violation of PRIOR court interpretations. He clearly did not. Citing the case that CHANGED the rules does not support the assertion on the floor. That case changed the rules. Do you understand that?
Repeat:

"The power of a written constitution lies in its words. It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government."

In other words, the Constitution has always spoken "clearly" that a President may only make recess appointments when Congress has declared itself to be in recess. Neither the Senate nor the House had passed resolutions declaring such, meaning that Obama knowingly made "clearly" unconstitutional appointments.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drumpf: Narcissistic Welfare King 19 min Annie 16
Democraps....the party of rape 27 min Fun Figures 6
Federal lands in America 1 hr Duke for Mayor 120
Obama at Hisoshima 1 hr Duke for Mayor 20
Radical Islamist in Sanders camp 1 hr d pants 18
Men in the Girls Bathroom 2 hr Math 369
MSNBC’s Brzezinski: Feels Like Clinton Is ‘Lyin... 3 hr Seriouslady 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages