I Wish Obama Respected the Constitution This Much

Hat top to HotAir for their Obamateurism Of The Day, the president bowing a ridiculously low bow to the emperor of Japan:

Obama bowing to Japanese Emperor

Looks familiar, does it not?  Remember his meeting with the Saudi King.Obama bowing to the Saudi King

This is how a president or VP should meet foreign leaders.

Cheney meeting the Japanese Emperor

From an LA Times piece on this controversy:

Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain’s Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America’s royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Back in 1994 when President Bill Clinton appeared to maybe perhaps almost start to bow to Akihito at a White House encounter, U.S. officials rushed to deny it was any such a thing. And the N.Y. Times chronicled the comedic drama here.

 

Advertisements

9 responses to “I Wish Obama Respected the Constitution This Much

  1. Godless American

    That much less huh? I mean, he follows the Constitution, so you must mean you want him to stop doing that. Let’s go back to the good ol’ days when Bush and Rep. Congress would do whatever they wanted even when it was illegal.

  2. Good one, GA. You and I may agree on our lack of religion but you should go read the Constitution.

    Mr. Obama rejects that the US Constitution puts any limits on what he or congress can do, the health care bills are proof of that. Anyone who, like Obama, believes in the intellectually bankrupt idea of a “living constitution” believes in no constitution at all, a la Sotomayor.

    Spare me your still-active Bush Derangement Syndrome. They did overstep on a few things, like the Medicare Prescription Drug program, but compare that to this socialist health care takeover – minor leaguers compared to Obama’s complete rejection of the concept that the constitution grants specific powers to government. Are you familiar with the 10th amendment?

    And spare me talk of crying for the non-rights of foreign terrorists.

    You know you are winning the argument when the other side has to keep pointing at Bush. He’s gone, move on, get some help with that BDS. Maybe some therapy?

  3. Godless American

    Those that forget or disregard history are doomed to repeat it. Is that the only example you can come up with of Bush’s illegal endeavors? The entire administration was rampantly against any type of ethical or legal oversite and they abused every right they had. There will never be, nor has ever been, a more corrupt administration.

    What has Obama done that’s socialist? What is the fear concerning socialism? Do you not like police, fire departments, and public roads? Do you really prefer to give businesses full reign and power to do whatever they’d like?

    What does the 10th Amendment have to do with healthcare? It states that the States can do what they’d like on issues that are not addressed by Federal regulations. If the Federal gov. addresses the issue, then the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply.

  4. Wow, I fugured that you would at least go read the 10th amendment before responding because you have it completely upside down:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    This means that unless a power is specifically delegated to the federal government it is reserved to the states and the people. Your understanding – that the feds can do whatever they want and the states get the crumbs – is completely backwards and intellectually untenable.

    You wrote: “What has Obama done that’s socialist? What is the fear concerning socialism? Do you not like police, fire departments, and public roads? Do you really prefer to give businesses full reign and power to do whatever they’d like?”

    Socialized medicine is socialism, comrade. I fear socialism because it is 1) unconstitutional, and 2) premised on an implicit acceptance that we are not free individuals but are instead just subjects owned by the govt. Socialism is simply inherently immoral regardless of the outcomes (which are always miserable).

    And your comment about the police and fire department is silly. Paying for the cost of common infrastructure is not socialism but redistributing property from the people who possess it to people whose sole qualification for receiving it is that they are unsuccessful *is*.

    I actually addressed that specific point in a post over at my other blog:

    http://waronsocialism.com/2009/10/20/on-taxes-and-socialism/

  5. Godless American

    That’s amazing how you can quote the 10th Amendment but still confuse it’s meaning.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Socialism
    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

    “Admistration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
    Includes
    -public roads
    -police protection
    -fire department protection
    -FDA
    -Social Security
    -Medicare
    -The entire U.S. military
    and the list goes on, and on, and on…

    Oh, and “comrade” was used in a Communist nation, not socialist. You can go look up the difference.

  6. Hmmm. At the risk of being accused of an ad hominem attack, this is where I ask what color the sky is in your little world.

    I have to admit that although you are completely wrong, you do have a novel approach. Most liberals accept that the very clear 10th amendment means what it says but choose to ignore it, arguing that the General Welfare clause and the Interstate Commerce clause constitute the additional “delegated powers” mentioned in the 10th amendment. I am going to parse this incredibly important closing amendment of the Bill of Rights for you so that you can understand it better:

    “The powers not delegated to the united States by the constitution” = the things not specifically mentioned in the text of the constitution as powers granted to the federal government

    “nor prohibited by it to the states” = but are also not forbidden powers to the states (e.g. signing treaties with foreign countries)

    “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” = must be handled by the states or the people, but NOT the federal government.

    If you cannot handle that parsing and explanation then you can only blame your government school education or your blind ideology.

    Now your second contention, that everything that the federal government spends money on constitutes socialism, is intellectually bankrupt… but seeing that you are a southern California liberal makes clear why you see everything through red-colored glasses.

    I pointed you at a blog post of mine where I very specifically discussed where the line is crossed from funding common infrastructure into socialism and it is largely related to a redistribution of wealth. It seems clear that you did not read it, though I will pass along the link again:

    http://waronsocialism.com/2009/10/20/on-taxes-and-socialism/

    A snippet:

    “Ever since that morning when the “Joe the Plumber” story broke and Americans saw the video showing candidate Barack Obama uncharacteristically allowing his inner socialist to slip out for a few seconds I have noticed that the media has suddenly become very concerned with the hard definition of Socialism. Since they did not like The One being criticized, particularly with an epithet like the S-word, they pounced on it every time the McCain campaign compared Obama’s slipped words to Socialism. In retrospect it seems obvious that the proper response to those transparent partisans posing as journalists was to point out that his positions are socialistic even if they do not precisely match the writings of some unhappy French guys like Leroux or Reybaud from the nineteenth century.”

    Additionally, I wrote a piece a few months ago that applies to people like you who insist on playing intentionally obfuscating word games:

    http://waronsocialism.com/2009/07/25/dont-allow-socialists-to-define-the-terms/

    Please stick around and keep arguing with me. I really enjoy it, but please try a little harder.

  7. Godless American

    “The powers not delegated to the united States by the constitution” = the things not specifically mentioned in the text of the constitution as powers granted to the federal government

    “nor prohibited by it to the states” = but are also not forbidden powers to the states (e.g. signing treaties with foreign countries)

    “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” = must be handled by the states or the people, but NOT the federal government.

    Again, your reply only makes my point.
    Once the Feds right something into law, which is a delegated right under the Constitution, and if that law specifically states how this law will be upheld across State lines, then the State cannot go against that law as stated by the 10th Amendment.

    Is it your stubbornness that doesn’t allow you to understand this issue? The 10th Amendment only allows States to right laws that aren’t against something that has been passed by the Feds: i.e. minimum wage, federal crimes, public education, and the list goes on and on. It doesn’t give states the right to make up their own rules when the Feds have laws on the books, unless those rules don’t go against the Federal regulation. California is an example of a state that is actually going against the tenth Amendment because they are allowing medical marijuana sales when the Feds have classified marijuana an illegal substance.

    I know, definitions are so obfuscating. No, it’s really the fear mongering used by people that bulk socialism, communism, marxism, and maoism together that is obfuscating. Defining these -isms actually helps to clear the matter of obfuscation.

    Healthcare reform, once it passes, will therefore be something the Feds have addressed; pertaining to the limits and regulations set up within that bill, the States will have to follow those tenets but may add further tenets of their own if they aren’t addressed or specified within the bill.

    Hope I didn’t lose you. Being a Joe-the-Plumber fan surely isn’t a sign of an overabundant comprehension level.

  8. I never claimed to be a Joe the Plumber supporter, sport, and your confusion of words like “write” and “right” does not reflect to well on your brilliance, so spare me your pathetic insults.

    You wrote: “Once the Feds right [sic] something into law, which is a delegated right under the Constitution, and if that law specifically states how this law will be upheld across State lines, then the State cannot go against that law as stated by the 10th Amendment.”

    You will not find a legitimate constitutional scholar in the land who agrees with that ridiculous misunderstanding. The feds can only *write* laws that are supported by their specifically delegated powers and the 10th amendment simply underscores that. Seriously, you are alone in your astoundingly wrong-headed interpretation of that amendment. And I will point out that governments do not have rights, people have rights, governments only have *powers* delegated to them by the people.

    You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution or of federalism – are you still in college or something? That would explain it! Again, no legitimate scholar would agree with your completely backwards interpretation of the 10th amendment. It has nothing to do with my stubborn nature (which is actually true) but is instead an understanding built on about 20 years of reading smart *informed* people discussing the US Constitution. You simply do not have a leg to stand on.

    You even got your *own* example completely wrong. California’s medical marijuana law is a clear case of a state exercising its 10th amendment protections. Since the feds have no Constitutional authority to outlaw it (where is the equivalent of the 18th amendment for pot?) they therefore have no say in CA enacting that law.

    Seriously, this is not an insult but instead a statement of fact: You really are clueless about the Constitution and federalism; people like you who do not even understand our constitutional system are the ones that allow politicians to run rampant over our rights.

    You need to do some reading. Start here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

  9. Godless American

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com is a wonderful example of a Right wing think tank that misrepresents the 10th Amendment. Who’s funding it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s