jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (57 posts)

U.S. Presidential Oath of Office

  1. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    - Oath of the President of the United States of America

    In your opinion, has Obama upheld his oath to preserve, "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

    Why?

    1. CMerritt profile image76
      CMerrittposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, did he serve to the BEST of his ABILITY?....perhaps...this is what we get when we hire a senator who serve a few months before he ran for this position....as a community organizer, his abilities are limited to take on the task he did.

      Did he preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?...huh! 

      NO, not in my opinion.  He has all but shredded it. 

      I do not think he was taking this Oath to heart.....and it has shown.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, Chris, and I firmly believe Obama would shred the document itself if he could physically get his hands on it.

        As for taking his oath to heart, I don't believe the man ever had the intention of doing so. His oath and the Constitution mean nothing to him.

        1. steveamy profile image60
          steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Right...

      2. profile image0
        richfsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not so sure we hired him. Lately there seems to be too many reports coming out of illegal voting and fraud.

    2. The Frog Prince profile image76
      The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obama is in the process of continuing to shred the US Constition, not uphold it.  His use of Presidential Signing statements, which he vowed not to use during the last campaign is a prime example.  If you don't know what they are about then do some research on the subject.  If you doubt what he said then Google "Obama Presidential Signing Statements" and see exactly what he said.  Their constitutionality has been in question and will continue to be.  These "Executive Directives" are also in question.  No where in the Constitution does it give any such authority to a US President.  I don't care "who" has done it in the past for whatever reason.  That isn't important.

      The Constitution specifically outlines the form of checks and balances that need to be in place in order for our Republic to function correctly.  It is specific in case you haven't read that document.  It outlines, and under lays the fact, that this nation was intended to have a 'LIMITED" federal government and that the states and individuals in them, need to be responsible for making the day-to-day decisions of the lives of the people, not some money gobbling behemoth of a federal bureaucracy.

      It isn't what Obama says, it is all in his actions.  Recently he stated that he will do an end around on Congress in order to get his way.  Read the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of this land, and see if that document allows any President to do that. 

      I can go on but I don't think I need to.  This nation fought a revolution to overthrow TYRANNY.  There was a king named George who told the colonists "it's my way or the highway."  In case you haven't bothered to ever notice, Obama has that exact same attitude and if a tyrant is allowed to continue to act that way then that is exactly how they will act.  Get the picture?

      The Frog

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There's no doubt that what Obama is doing in unconstitutional but who's going to stop him? Certainly not the pantie-waste politicians in Washington.

        It's time for them all to go.

        1. The Frog Prince profile image76
          The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's been on my mind.  Many people who voted for Oblabber Mouth did so to make "history."  Gee whiz, we elected the first black President (kinda sort of) so see how far we've come?  That's a hell of a reason to elect anyone of any color who wasn't qualified to be sitting up there and totally inexperienced to do so. We now see him waging the exact same class warfare he decried.  Right Obama.

          So lets make some more history and "impeach" the first black President ever elected.  What comes around should surely go around when any person shows the utter arrogance displayed by an individual such as Obama.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If I'm not mistaken, impeachment is done in the Senate. It won't happen as long as we have the arrogant Harry Reid as its leader and a Dem majority.

            We know Holder won't do anything against his own master, so no help there.

            The only hope we really have is the 2012 elections and voting Obama out. Even then, there's no telling what this tyrannical dictator wannabe will try to stay in power.

            1. The Frog Prince profile image76
              The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Correct on the one hand but the House is the body that draws up the articles.  If they need any help they can seek my assistance because there is the litany there for the reading.  Same thing happened to Bill Clinton.  He got the message which was, "Cut the crap Mr. President."

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No. Obviously not.

      The list would be too long for this forum.

      NDAA is a quick note.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And the holy Ron Paul would abdicate the primary responsibility of defending the nation and its interests ceding global naval power to the Chinese.  Genius!!

        1. The Frog Prince profile image76
          The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ron Paul is a bit of a quack truth be known.  He has some good ideas but letting the world run helter skelter isn't one of them.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            One of my favorite things to say about Ron Paul is - If you scrape all the doctor off of Ron Paul all that is left is nut.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ... said the man who wants to bomb Iran...

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It will eventually become necessary to bomb Iran as the "twelvers" get more influence in the Iranian government and a nuke.  But why would I want to bomb Iran.  The most beautiful woman I have ever known lives in Iran.  That makes me sad, not angry, that these wonderful people have to live under a tyrannical government.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  and it's MY taxpayer DUTY to overthrow tyranny!

                  *burp*

                  Sorry, I've been drinking a lot.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You never really have to admit to drinking a lot - as a Ron Paul supporter your inebriation is expected.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Someone doesn't understand what "defense" and "offense" mean.

          PS - why is "global naval power" a thing that we should be worried about? We can send a nuke to anywhere in the world in under half an hour.

          Also, why is it it something that the US is supposed to be in charge of?

          So many false premises underlie your strange statements.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Just to clarify, you would rather fight a conventional war with nukes?

            Would you not agree that we need a strong military, Evan?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No. I want a decentralized military. I'm sick of wasting my money on a standing Army and Navy.

              The only military conflicts we're involved with are the ones we started.

              1. profile image0
                richfsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You are partially correct. Right now the only conflicts we are invoved in are ones we started. However you forget WW2. We had a military reduction after WW1 and look what happened to us? We were unprepared for the Japanese attack. We were lucky our only carriers were not in port. You also forget that the only reason we didn't get obliterated by the Soviet Union or China during the cold war was because of our large military deterrent. Had we not had a military presence in the world, we may not have been so lucky.

                1. The Frog Prince profile image76
                  The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That an answer is a little too Clintonesque.  I happened to be in an auditorium of senior military people when Clinton, without blinking an eye mind you, told us that he was going to reduce the size of the armed forces by 50% because "Now after Desert Storm the world was going to be a safe place."  It didn't exactly turn out that way now, did it? Clinton had to deploy combat forces during his tenure a few times.

                  The primary role of the federal government is to provide for the national defense of this nation.  Reality says that it is through, and by, projecting strength to deter any attack on this nation.  Now the knuckle headed Muslims whackos don't understand that and it needs to be at their peril, not ours.

                  That's the same drift Obama is trying to use as we wind down what is going on now.  The world is NOT a safe place now so we need to stay the course.

                  The Frog

                  1. profile image0
                    richfsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Kinda think that's what I said?

          2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you advocate protecting American interests around the world with nuclear weapons.  If that is indicative of Paulniac reasoning we should all be afraid.

            Perhaps a little education would be helpful.
            http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrate … mahan.html

            Who advocates that the US should be in charge of any thing.  Perhaps you and that nut, Ron Paul, should think about what world trade would be like without the United States Navy.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, I don't advocate nuking everything. Nice try, nice twist.

              The point was that we can bomb things easily and cheaply.

              But we don't need to.

              And, that link was hilarious. "Some guy who likes to bomb places said we should build a navy so that we can bomb more places!"

              Give me a break.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              World trade without us bombing places?

              Why... it would be... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~~~!!!! It CAN'T BE!!!

              World trade would be... would be...

              IT WOULD BE PEACEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. The Frog Prince profile image76
        The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Most of the sheeple out here in this nation don't even realize what the NDAA allows the federal government to do which flies right in the face of the 4th Amendment.  So Obama is upholding the US Constitution?  Bull crap.  The liberals of the world think "Obama will protect me."  Better take a hard look at the concept of tyranny and who is protected when it is allowed to occur.

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Americans get the government they deserve.  Barrack Obama would not have been elected if Republicans had not nominated that gas bag John McCain.  Though Mitt Romney is not conservative enough for me, he would have been better suited to the challenge.  Why was Mitt not nominated?  Republicans do not have a closed primary system - that needs to end.  Romney is also a Mormon, two people I know who are strong Republicans refused to vote for a Mormon.

      We have no one to blame but ourselves.  Do we boycott movies by liberals so that their wealth dries up and cannot support liberal candidates?  Do we boycott liberal news outlets so that they become increasingly irrelevant? Do we voice our opinion in letter writing campaigns when TV shows slam conservatives?

      Until we get a spine and fight we have no room to be righteous about what disaster befalls the country.

      AND Barrack Obama, as are ALL liberals, is a disaster.

    5. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has made it clear from the start in his references to the Constitution being an "old, outdated document". That reference should have sent cold chills down the spine of every American voter with any appreciation of our roots in Constitutional governance and respect for the Rule of Law. Obama purports to be a "Magna Cum Laude" grad of Columbia with a Doctorate of Juris Prudence. I know of no person with such an achievement who has so little respect for the documents which are the foundations for our legal system and laws in this country. In Obama's case, his knowledge of the law extends only to the limits of how far he can bend it in order to accelerate his agenga toward a socialist state. Our economy remains in relative stagnation and he continues to make appointments which will likely enhance that position reinforcing the NLRB to increase its watchdog powers over business and steadily growing the hand of big government in our lives.  Silence toward his actions on the part of those in the legislative branch simply confirms to him that he has no effective opposition in continuing on his path of destruction and it emboldens his effort. At some point, he could care less as to what people think of his actions...they will have no recourse.  With regard to what is happening now, it is imperative that Boehner and McConnell raise the penalty flag and call the President on his actions regardless of whether they think they can perserver or not. It is is a matter of Constitutional principle and the words need to be spoken. To remain silent and attempt no action is nothing less than a sign of confirmation of the President's action and also an indication of where these elected ones place their principled values relative to their political future. Sadly, we have a population in Washington devoid of principle, character, or spine. We, the voters, have sent them there and ultimately bear the responsiblity for the lack of Constitutional government.  WB

      1. The Frog Prince profile image76
        The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Principles?  Come on Wayne old buddy.  Principles and career politicians are a BIG oxymoron.  Transcends the word itself.

    6. profile image0
      richfsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      From what I can see, he is doing his best to skirt around the Constitution every chance he gets. He is working with his Secretary of State to sign a UN resolution banning guns in all signature nations. A direct violation of our Second Amendment. He is using the BATFE to try to regulate ammunition which in effect bans firearms to many Americans. This is again skirting around Congress and the Second Amendment. Also, he made a speech once where he stated "The Constitution is outdated and irrelavant." So in answer to your question. NO

    7. barranca profile image72
      barrancaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No.   Assassinating American citizens without trial?  supporting and extending the Patriot Act?  No closing Guantanamo?  Persecuting whistleblowers?  Opening new battlefields without insisting Congress declare war?   Wiretapping the country without FISA approval?   Denying the right to habeas corpus?   On and on.  For a constitutional lawyer, he has done at least as much as Bush to undermine our rights.

      1. barranca profile image72
        barrancaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would also like to say that Republican presidents have been just as bad and I don't see a Republican candidate on the horizon who would be a wit better.

        1. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am a democrat and I gotta say, George (either) does not come close.

          in another forum I am called a neurotic maggot. Why? Because I care.  Go figure.

    8. profile image59
      WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No.

      He has done everyhting in his power to undermine it.

  2. rachellrobinson profile image84
    rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago

    The news story this morning before work was that Obama planned to go it alone in 2012. I didn't see the story but it implied that he planned on pushing through laws without Congress, makes a person wonder what ever happened to checks and balances.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Checks and balances don't exist in the mind of Obama. He thinks himself king rather than what he really is - a horrible president.

      1. The Frog Prince profile image76
        The Frog Princeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Therein lies a problem that "We, the People..."  need to address head and on and rectify.  The last time we had a King in charge of the chicken coop it didn't go to well for the King.

      2. rachellrobinson profile image84
        rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I absolutely agree.

        1. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ditto. And the sooner, the better.

          I have a sneaky suspicion.

          I once read, that the pres has the power to call for martial law in times of war. I admit, what I KNOW about this is little. Also, during the time of martial law, any elections can be/will be put on hold.

          Can someone who knows more than me explain this?

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Name one who you think is better and explain why.  Bush? Reagan?  Bush? Jefferson?

        Explain how any of them did a better job, especially when it comes to upholding the constitution.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't start with me, Ron. You know good and well Obama is nothing but a Socialist. If you don't know it by now, your blind or just as big a Socialist as he is. Stop drinking the Kool-Aide and wise up.

          1. barranca profile image72
            barrancaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh please.  Socialist?  What a lot of BS that argument is.  The whole world lives in a mixed economy.  There's no such thing as a socialist or a capitalist anymore.

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm. You don't like Socialist? It applies but okay. Lets use something else that applies equally as well.

              How about two-bit, dictator-wannabe, Chicago street thug, and failure of a president that hates his country and its Constitution?

              I know. It's a little long but it applies to Obama.

              1. profile image0
                richfsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Don't forget "Dumb SOB"

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, richfsr, I mistakenly left that out.

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My blind what?

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You're blind as in you can't or won't see that Obama is a horrible president.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ahhhhhhh..

                It's a little confusing when you use your and you're interchangeably.

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If that's all you can find to pick at, YOU'RE having a good day, Ron.

  3. rachellrobinson profile image84
    rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago

    I just had someone comment on one of my hubs that there is a total lack of evidence that Obama doesn't follow the constitution or wants to destroy it. That just goes to show the mindset of people who think Obama is supreme leader, or the holy one.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Those kind of people are nothing but little blind mice willing to follow whomever will take their hand and lead them. Those kind of people are also very dangerous, ignorant people that can vote.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    Bye our illusions...

  5. Smokes Angel profile image73
    Smokes Angelposted 5 years ago

    As far as I am concerned, when Obama signed the ADAA he buried any chance of getting re-elected and violated his oath.  It's really too late for impeachment.  However, keep in mind, Congress also had to pass this bill so we need to get those responsible out of office too.

  6. barranca profile image72
    barrancaposted 5 years ago

    This is an echo chamber of little minds.

 
working