U.S. Presidential Oath of Office

1. 0

   Longhunterposted 13 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?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      CMerrittposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            steveamyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Right...

            replyreport
      2. 0

         richfsrposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   2. 69

      The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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."

                  replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No. Obviously not.
      
      The list would be too long for this forum.
      
      NDAA is a quick note.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin 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!!

         replyreport
         1. 69

            The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        and it's MY taxpayer DUTY to overthrow tyranny!
                        
                        *burp*
                        
                        Sorry, I've been drinking a lot.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     richfsrposted 13 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           richfsrposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Kinda think that's what I said?

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I was just adding my two cents worth and putting it in my own words.

                              replyreport
            2. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  replyreport
      2. 69

         The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      Wayne Brownposted 13 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 69

         The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
   6. 0

      richfsrposted 13 years agoin 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

      replyreport
   7. 80

      barrancaposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         barrancaposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            mom101posted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
   8. 56

      WhoBeYouBeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No.
      
      He has done everyhting in his power to undermine it.

      replyreport
2. 83

   rachellrobinsonposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
      2. 83

         rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I absolutely agree.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            mom101posted 13 years agoin 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?

            replyreport
      3. 59

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               barrancaposted 13 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     richfsrposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Don't forget "Dumb SOB"

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Longhunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks, richfsr, I mistakenly left that out.

                        replyreport
            2. 59

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               My blind what?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Longhunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Longhunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                        replyreport
3. 83

   rachellrobinsonposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Longhunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
4. 64

   maxoxam41posted 13 years ago

   Bye our illusions...

   replyreport
5. 61

   Smokes Angelposted 13 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.

   replyreport
6. 80

   barrancaposted 13 years ago

   This is an echo chamber of little minds.

   replyreport