User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:19:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NSA monitoring politicians and the establishment using any found details to their advantage isn't much of a leap Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If anything Obama brought to light what could be done with executive orders and judicial appointments. The next President could reshape the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Remember all those 5/4 votes that went our way. Well, that could easily be reversed. IT's been done. Roberts. NSA. something hanging over him... Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. The NSA monitoring politicians and the establishment using any found details to their advantage isn't much of a leap Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:20:37 AM EDT
[#2]
Oh, if only true Barry. What great things you would do with one more term. I'm sure, you piece of shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:21:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ive got nothing to say that wouldnt earn me a visit by the secret service , so . . . . FBHO I swear I dont know how they are willing to take a bullet for that fucker. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:25:15 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I swear I dont know how they are willing to take a bullet for that fucker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ive got nothing to say that wouldnt earn me a visit by the secret service , so . . . . FBHO I swear I dont know how they are willing to take a bullet for that fucker. I'm going with same reason people are willing to serve in the military with him as their CinC. Respect for the US and the office of the President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:27:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the election was tomorrow I don't think he would win against Trump.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He'd win a third, I have no doubt. Why? Because the libs will always lib. If the election was tomorrow I don't think he would win against Trump. LOL wut? Yes, he would win against Donald Trump. The polls are not perfect and we do tend to put too much faith in them, but they aren't that wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:29:20 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I swear I dont know how they are willing to take a bullet for that fucker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ive got nothing to say that wouldnt earn me a visit by the secret service , so . . . . FBHO I swear I dont know how they are willing to take a bullet for that fucker. It is their job. And they protect the stability of the government - even when voters make very disappointing decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:30:55 AM EDT
[#7]
I thought we had a king and we threw him out 230 year ago
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:32:36 AM EDT
[#8]
Too bad he can't do it. There are rules for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:37:56 AM EDT
[#9]
He is probably right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:38:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Yeah, he could steal a third term like he did the second one!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:41:54 AM EDT
[#11]
I wonder how many people here had thoughts that would get them in big trouble if they typed them out when they read this topic. I am betting I know what would happen if he figured out a way into a third term. Now as for will he actually get a third term??? I have to think the under the table agreement with Hillary was let him have 2 terms and then it is her turn. And I hate to even think about it but it could be that Trump is setting it up to happen by being a third party spoiler.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:46:56 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Additionally, what would stop him from "suspending" the Constitution due to some sort of national "emergency " and imposing martial law indefinitely? Third term +...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. He doesn't care about laws or constitutionality of things. Why he hasn't declared himself supreme ruler for life yet (he's probably got a better title in mind, though) I'm not entirely sure. Additionally, what would stop him from "suspending" the Constitution due to some sort of national "emergency " and imposing martial law indefinitely? Third term +...... Right, this was the same exact line libtards were saying about Bush during his second term. He isn't staying and you can bet on it. With Obamacare in place he's already got the means to get even more people on the dole of the government. It looks like the repubs will cave on immigration. He'll have safely changed the electorate enough to ensure democratic wins for decades. He'll be the first president to make a billion dollars in speaking fees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 10:46:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: His poll numbers among the dead, mentally incompetent (his biggest voting block) and those without any form of ID are off the charts.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He is a piece of shit, but he is correct there, if allowed by law to run for a third term, he would win by roughly the same margins he did in the last 2 elections. FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:01:25 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boehner would NOT lead the charge to impeach him in a jiffy he tried to pull that Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see an executive order coming. Boehner would NOT lead the charge to impeach him in a jiffy he tried to pull that fify |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:01:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he could. Its the state of mind in this country now. We better win 2016. If anything Obama brought to light what could be done with executive orders and judicial appointments. The next President could reshape the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Remember all those 5/4 votes that went our way. Well, that could easily be reversed. IT's been done. Roberts. NSA. something hanging over him... Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. Occum's hatchet. Twice the Obama screamed and threatened in public about ruling against Obamacare. Twice Roberts sided against his conservative bona fides after the public threats. Common core math says something is going on here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:04:52 AM EDT
[#16]
His narcissism is only matched by his ineptitude.
 Oh and the sad part is he is probably right. FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:05:24 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too bad he can't do it. There are rules for a reason. For a convenience, when they work to your advantage. Otherwise, illegal alien crime spree... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:08:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I could see his wife the Wookie running .I have been saying this for a while, I would not be surprised to find out this is being discussed behind closed doors. ETA: Regardless of Michelle runs or not, I have a feeling that Zero is not going to go away quietly. He is going to co-president one way or the other. There will be an "office of the former president" podium and lots of media airtime. He will probably get more air time then who ever replaces him in the WH will get, especially if a Republican wins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:12:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been saying this for a while, I would not be surprised to find out this is being discussed behind closed doors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I could see his wife the Wookie running .I have been saying this for a while, I would not be surprised to find out this is being discussed behind closed doors. Hope Solo should be her running mate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:20:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He doesn't need dead voters. If you interact with a lot of the general population on a regular basis you'll understand that people are actually that stupid Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
he would, There are a lot more dead voters to use. He doesn't need dead voters. If you interact with a lot of the general population on a regular basis you'll understand that people are actually that stupid Yep, go read the comments sections in Huffpo or Vox articles. They worship him like a god. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:25:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. uh. no they can't not all by themselves. Look it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:26:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
uh. no they can't not all by themselves. Look it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. uh. no they can't not all by themselves. Look it up. It's all part of the "they don't obey the law so they can do whatever they want" derp. It makes you wonder why they would even bother having an election if they were just going to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:26:30 AM EDT
[#23]
I'd almost bet that most people would go about their lives as usual if he were to weasel his way into a 3rd term.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:27:17 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd almost bet that most people would go about their lives as usual if he were to weasel his way into a 3rd term. Pretty much. There would be a lot of whining on the internet though |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:31:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: President Obama told the African Union Tuesday that he felt he has been a "pretty good” president and if he were allowed to run for a third term, he’d probably be victorious. Obama made the remarks while criticizing leaders on the continent who wouldn’t step aside at the conclusion of their terms.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA6IEH3xsPUhttp://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-im-a-pretty-good-president-and-if-i-ran-for-a-third-term-i-could-win/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:32:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
President Obama told the African Union Tuesday that he felt he has been a “pretty good” president and if he were allowed to run for a third term, he’d probably be victorious. Obama made the remarks while criticizing leaders on the continent who wouldn’t step aside at the conclusion of their terms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA6IEH3xsPU
http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-im-a-pretty-good-president-and-if-i-ran-for-a-third-term-i-could-win/ Four more years of free shit for The Kenyan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:33:52 AM EDT
[#27]
He's right. He could win a 3rd term.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:34:04 AM EDT
[#28]
He probably would. Obama vs Jeb and Obama would win in a landslide.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:34:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. No they can't. Congress can't amend the constitution on their own. At least not yet. Given their recent track record, I wouldnt' put it past them to try to legislatively delegate powers even they don't have to the president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:39:33 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:44:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boehner would go along with it...With a tear in his eye.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. Boehner would go along with it...With a tear in his eye.. Uh No. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the term limit set in the 1940s. It ain`t going to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:45:10 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If anything Obama brought to light what could be done with executive orders and judicial appointments. The next President could reshape the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Remember all those 5/4 votes that went our way. Well, that could easily be reversed. IT's been done. Roberts. NSA. something hanging over him... Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. The NSA monitoring politicians and the establishment using any found details to their advantage isn't much of a leap Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:58:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. The NSA monitoring politicians and the establishment using any found details to their advantage isn't much of a leap Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:26:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Yeah, sure...FBHO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:39:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Thank God for the 22nd Amendment....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:39:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That pesky 22nd Amendment. Good luck getting 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment you buttheaded fucker.  At the rate he's going, he may try to executive order himself a 3rd term... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:41:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the rate he's going, he may try to executive order himself a 3rd term... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That pesky 22nd Amendment. Good luck getting 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment you buttheaded fucker. At the rate he's going, he may try to executive order himself a 3rd term... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:48:14 PM EDT
[#38]
In the early 20th Century, it took a Constitutional amendment for the fedgov to outlaw alcohol.
Then Congress created the FDA. Was there any Constitutional amendment passed to outlaw marijuana or opium? No, the FDA classified them as a controlled substances. No amendment EVER needed again. What about what we currently see wrt machineguns? Read through Nolo's thread, and you'll see the debates from Congress when the NFA was passed in 1934. Now, the BATFE makes up their own definitions and enforces those at the point of a gun. The Rule of Law as layed out in the Constitution is DEAD, and has been for quite awhile. With all the other ignoring of the defintions of words going on, how difficult would it be for Obama to find a judge willing to change definitions to allow him to run again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:04:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Its hard to say if he would win. He barely won the last election, and as a sitting president that shows a pretty weak ability. The economy, and his approval ratings were in a much different place then, so he might fair a bit better, but you actually have to run a campaign and a lot of shit happens.
His comments were directly attacking the current president of Burundi, who just got elected to a third term despite it being unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:06:27 PM EDT
[#40]
And another Nobel Prize for his Iran dealio.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:16:17 PM EDT
[#41]
And you could have a giant cactus shoved up your ass too cock gobbling bastard son of a drunken communist.
FBHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:43:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He speaks the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:44:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the early 20th Century, it took a Constitutional amendment for the fedgov to outlaw alcohol. Then Congress created the FDA. Was there any Constitutional amendment passed to outlaw marijuana or opium? No, the FDA classified them as a controlled substances. No amendment EVER needed again. What about what we currently see wrt machineguns? Read through Nolo's thread, and you'll see the debates from Congress when the NFA was passed in 1934. Now, the BATFE makes up their own definitions and enforces those at the point of a gun. The Rule of Law as layed out in the Constitution is DEAD, and has been for quite awhile. With all the other ignoring of the defintions of words going on, how difficult would it be for Obama to find a judge willing to change definitions to allow him to run again? Big Important Note: I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, that an amendment is needed to ban drugs. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The existence of the 18th Amendment is not proof that an amendment was required to ban alcohol. An amendment is more difficult to repeal than a law, which means amendments can be used as super-laws, effectively, if an idea currently has widespread support but it is feared that support will go away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:46:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conspiratorial nonsense used to support more conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, that's been done plenty. The NSA monitoring politicians and the establishment using any found details to their advantage isn't much of a leap Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html https://www.rt.com/usa/310906-nsa-delete-surveillance-records/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:47:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you think he is a pretty good president?? Maybe qualify your statement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He speaks the truth. 
Don't be pedantic, you know what he meant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:47:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html https://www.rt.com/usa/310906-nsa-delete-surveillance-records/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html https://www.rt.com/usa/310906-nsa-delete-surveillance-records/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Yes, I'm aware. I have a program which periodically downloads all of the releases from the EFF. None of what you posted actually supports the claim you made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:54:01 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I'm aware. I have a program which periodically downloads all of the releases from the EFF. None of what you posted actually supports the claim you made. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense being used to support conspiratorial nonsense. There's no evidence of the NSA spying politicians to begin with, let alone solid enough evidence to support the leap you say isn't that big. A) Thanks to Snowden, whatever you may think of him, we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can all the time they aren't going to filter out traffic just for lawmakers and judges. B) NSA, CIA same shit different pile http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html https://www.rt.com/usa/310906-nsa-delete-surveillance-records/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Yes, I'm aware. I have a program which periodically downloads all of the releases from the EFF. None of what you posted actually supports the claim you made. My claim: "we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can" is heavily supported by all of those links re: bulk collection of phone and IP traffic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My claim: "we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can" is heavily supported by all of those links re. bulk collection of phone and IP traffic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A)No, we actually don't. B)The CIA gathered information from computers which they provided to staffers. A violation, yes, but not what you're making it out to be. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html https://www.rt.com/usa/310906-nsa-delete-surveillance-records/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Yes, I'm aware. I have a program which periodically downloads all of the releases from the EFF. None of what you posted actually supports the claim you made. My claim: "we know the NSA collects data on as many people as they can" is heavily supported by all of those links re. bulk collection of phone and IP traffic. Not really. Do some digging into what's actually been leaked, not what Greenwald and the tech-illiterate journalists claim they mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:58:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would not be surprised at all if the legislation is already in the works, and backdoor deals already in play to get it passed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He could have his third term. Congress could repeal the term limits for POTUS. Would not be surprised at all if the legislation is already in the works, and backdoor deals already in play to get it passed. Actually. There's a bill that gets submitted almost every year for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:59:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big Important Note: I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, that an amendment is needed to ban drugs. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The existence of the 18th Amendment is not proof that an amendment was required to ban alcohol. An amendment is more difficult to repeal than a law, which means amendments can be used as super-laws, effectively, if an idea currently has widespread support but it is feared that support will go away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the early 20th Century, it took a Constitutional amendment for the fedgov to outlaw alcohol. Then Congress created the FDA. Was there any Constitutional amendment passed to outlaw marijuana or opium? No, the FDA classified them as a controlled substances. No amendment EVER needed again. What about what we currently see wrt machineguns? Read through Nolo's thread, and you'll see the debates from Congress when the NFA was passed in 1934. Now, the BATFE makes up their own definitions and enforces those at the point of a gun. The Rule of Law as layed out in the Constitution is DEAD, and has been for quite awhile. With all the other ignoring of the defintions of words going on, how difficult would it be for Obama to find a judge willing to change definitions to allow him to run again? Big Important Note: I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, that an amendment is needed to ban drugs. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The existence of the 18th Amendment is not proof that an amendment was required to ban alcohol. An amendment is more difficult to repeal than a law, which means amendments can be used as super-laws, effectively, if an idea currently has widespread support but it is feared that support will go away. Under the thinking during the time it was passed, because there was no power delegated to fedgov in the Constitution, fedgov did not have the power to ban alcohol nationwide. Therefore, the only way to do it was by Amendment. That was why I also mentioned the NFA as there is ample info on this very site to go over how even those who desperately wanted to get rid of something viewed the restrictions on their power to do so. Thse were also in the pre-Wickard v Filburn Commerce Clause is All Powerful days. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
