Obama Will Soon Declare The Constitution--Unconstitutional!




 

 

 

 

John Lillpop

Saturday, February 26, 2011

 

Granted that conservatives are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

We right-wingers sometimes have difficulty grasping the deep, elusive logic

of intellectual elitists on the left like Barack Obama when it comes to great

and serious questions concerning the U.S. Constitution.

 

For example, we find it difficult to understand how it is that man who invented

ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate courts,

feels qualified to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act,

law of the land for 15 years, is suddenly unconstitutional, thereby freeing himself

from the responsibility to defend said law in fulfillment of his Oath of Office.

 

What next, Mr. President?

 

According to unreliable sources, it appears that President Obama will make a

major announcement that will CHANGE everything in America.

The gist of that announcement:

The U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional because women and racial, sexual

preference, and religious minorities were all under represented in 1776.

Indeed, without any openly gay men or transgender people involved in the crafting

of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all such

documents must be declared null and void.

Other excluded minorities include women, terrorists, and illegal aliens.

Without factoring in the wishes and needs of terrorists and illegal aliens how in the

world can our democracy function?

The answer, of course, is that it cannot, which is why

Obama will soon declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional!

 

Of course, if Obama really gave a tinker’s dam about the Constitution,

He would scrap his outrageous law suit against the state of Arizona for

protecting its citizens from invaders.

He would move to scrap ObamaCare, which was rammed down the throats

of unwilling Americans with legislative sleight of hands and bribery when the

votes were not there to follow the rules.

He would understand that forcing citizens to purchase health care insurance,

or face the ravages of the IRS, is barbaric and unconstitutional.

He would understand that the Constitution is very specific when it comes to the

eligibility of any person to serve as president.

Thus, he would make every effort to be completely honest and transparent with

the American people concerning questions about his own eligibility.

He would understand that the Constitution sets forth provisions for separation of

powers, meant to assure that the Executive Branch is accountable to the people

through the oversight function performed by Congress.

He would understand that installation of stealth Czars in order to circumvent

Congressional oversight is a repudiation of the Constitution.

He would understand that voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party

is not acceptable simply because the intimidated are not people of color.

He would understand that actions taken to grant rights reserved for citizens to

terrorists are anti-American acts of treason.

He would understand that the Constitution requires the president to secure our

borders and enforce our immigration laws so as to protect the American people.

He would understand that it is the president’s Constitutional obligation to serve

as America’s Commander-in-Chief, which requires him to use war powers prudently

to defend the American people, rather than using those powers as political footballs.

Above all else, if he were genuine, President Obama would understand that the will

of the people should be the first priority for any political entity wishing to govern, and

that that applies to taxes, illegal invasions, health care, terrorists, and all major issues

of the day.

The fact is that Barack Obama views the Constitution as an impediment

to his Marxist agenda.

 

He MUST be stopped.





Views: 60

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The President simply does not have the authority to legally pronounce the Constitution void on this bases. He can say whatever he wishes but doen't make it factually legal. All I can say is, I voted for the other guy. Obama is a trojan horse and if anyone thinks otherwise, well, their retarded. I hope the next election people think more about what doesn't fit in their tax payer wallet and more to the original intent of our Constitution the Founding Fathers left us. liberal politicians say many things as probes to see how we react, I`m sending Obama the middle finger. Oh, I think I will hang on to my Bible an my Guuuuuuns.

 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service