sort by best latest
Best Answer Wayne Brown says
So uphold doesn't mean "preserve, protect, and defend" ? in your paralell universe? "...nothing to do with the Constitution" ? So on what basis does the admnistration argue they are right? DUH The constitution - what planet did you say you are from?
Uphold does not mean "preserve, protect, and defend" in this universe. Look them up in the dictionary and you will see.
This case is not a test of Constitutional law. It is about partisan procedural bickering.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
ib radmasters says
Not sure I understand your answer - if what he did was unconstitutional then he broke the law and violated his oath of office whether it was challenged or not. Nowhere does he have authority to violate the constitution.
Ex post facto laws are prohibited, laws passed after the fact. Since the issue in question was not directly addressed by the existing statutes and jurisprudence, it would be assumed to be legal until the court rule otherwise.
Larry Wall, ib radmasters said de facto, not ex post facto. Example, the Federal Government has de facto authority (by presumption, not by law) over the States, and that’s why States can have marijuana legal, but it’s still a federal crime in the US
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Michael Ward says
Do I detect a note of cynicism? Rather an extreme point of view, wouldn't you say? Although I can understand why you feel that way. Maybe the problem isn't the politicians but an uninformed electorate who keeps them in office.
Ron Gawthorp says
I do not understand why people are so upset. Other presidents have made appointments during periods when the Congress was not in session. They were challenged on the floor of the Senate and if the Senate did not concur then the person lost the post.
Those other presidents weren't black communist socialist reptilian secret muslims.
Scottcgrue:r I will agree, the other presidents to engage in this practice were not black. Your bias against the current president is obvious and a very sad commentary.Would you approve of another president who met your standards doing the same thing
Larry, you don't understand, unlike other presidents, this time Barack made appointments during a proforma session which is not a recess. That is the whole point and the pro forma session was the creation of Hary Reid '07 to block Bush appts. Ironic
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
A Little TRUTH says
You are kidding aren't you? Making unconstitutional appointments is breaking constitutional law. How can he be considered to be protecting defending or preserving it if he willingly violates it? Lock it in a safe? - YOU ARE NUTS.
It is all a matter of timing. Normally, you expect to get approval first, but no law says you have to. Many appointments by many presidents have been done this way.
Dont Taze Me Bro, No, I’m not kidding. May I suggest to look up preserve, protect, defend - they have nothing to do with obedience or allegiance. You know lawyers like to play word games.
Very Little Truth. Article VI clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires that all who hold office in the United States take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Oaths taken are to uphold the constitution whatever the wording.
Recess appointments are a technicality, not a violation of the law. This is just conservative grandstanding to try and make the President seem like a dictator. This decision is dirty politics done via the courts.
So now your first argument about semantics is destroyed you skip to another phoney argument - it appears there are no lengths to which you will go to protect your Messiah. Obama can't be wrong, must be the entire court system & political conspir
No, my original argument is still correct. The point is that you are making a huge stink over nothing. Recess appointments are not a dictatorship. Maybe they technically violate the separation of powers, but so does Congressional obstructionism.
I didn't make any stink - you and a few others did that with bogus arguments that have nothing to do with the question. Congressional obstructionism? So you hold Democrats responsible too? I doubt that. You really have no more credibility.
I fault Democrats in the Senate for passing rules that allow one Senator to hold up appointments indefinitely. But mainly I blame Republicans for playing dirty politics. That's all this is.
The Art VI oath is to “support” -still not obey. The bigger issue is, if a president obeyed the Constitution, there would be no Federal Reserve, no gun control, no income tax, no foreign aid, no corp. bailouts, no troops in 100 countries, no NAFTA…
ALT Why are you stuck on now another word - uphold and support are synonymous and this is not a reasonable argument by any stretch. You just are unable to admit when you are WRONG, perhaps a sign of immaturity?
search these pages for the word uphold and you will find it - uphold and support are synonymous, if you care to be honest about it.
Yes, support, uphold, even defend are synonymous - neither means obey. Obama doesn’t obey the Constitution, just gives it lip service. He makes people think he wants to, but never swore he would obey it, so he didn’t break his oath by not obeying it
Are you crazy? Iif you don't obey it how can you be supporting it? If you pledge to support anything and then go against it, or disobey it you are a hipocrit which means you do not support (or uphold) it. That limb you are on broke a while ago CRASH!
Yaknow what, A LittleTruth may be right. Obama might think that way, he is like Clinton when it comes to twisted reasoning (remember it depends on what is means) But if that is Obama's take he's dead wrong. This question isn't What does Obama think?
If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court decisions, do all of these anti-Obama arguments become invalid, or will they switch to saying that the Supreme Court is rewriting and not interpreting it and related laws?
Obama has a Harvard law degree & knows the legal definitions of words. Briefly:
preserve: keep safe from harm
protect: ditto & indemnify
defend: keep secure
support: answer arguments in favor of something
None means obey, LEGALLY - maybe c
- See all 17 commentsHide extra comments
Larry Wall says
This discussion has little to do with the legalities that may be involved but is over race and political position of each of us. Jefferson did not have authority to make the Louisiana Purchase, F. Roosevelt, push the limit and do not forget Nixon.