PDA

View Full Version : A couple of questions concerning the Constitution




Michael Ingram
09-18-2007, 04:50 PM
Do ALL members of congress need to swear to uphold the constitution, or only the president?

Following up on that, what are some specific examples of presidents (or members of congress if they need to swear to uphold the constitution) who did things that went AGAINST the Constitution?

Thanks a lot :D

paulpwns
09-18-2007, 04:52 PM
all members must swear to uphold it.

the line item veto is an example of Clinton violating the constitution. the supreme court usually enacts judicial review to make sure people aren't violating the constitution.

Dustancostine
09-18-2007, 05:00 PM
I think an amendment for the line item veto would be good. Any veto is a good thing.

ctb619
09-18-2007, 05:07 PM
I think an amendment for the line item veto would be good. Any veto is a good thing.

gives in executive too much power in my opinion

Michael Ingram
09-18-2007, 05:19 PM
anything else, is there a website I could go to so I could see a bunch of examples?

paulpwns
09-18-2007, 05:19 PM
I think an amendment for the line item veto would be good. Any veto is a good thing.


Well luckily the supreme court dosen't agree.

Why would it be good? It goes against the constitution?


In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens upheld a lower court's decision, concluding "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."

If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment, Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.

The court's ruling was a defeat for the Clinton Administration, which asked the high court to reverse the lower court's ruling. President Bill Clinton, traveling in China, said he was "deeply disappointed."

Michael Ingram
09-18-2007, 05:44 PM
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm

I have that, but it doesn't include any recent stuff

Michael Ingram
09-18-2007, 05:49 PM
I think I'm set, there's some great stuff at cato.org

paulpwns
09-18-2007, 05:56 PM
I think I'm set, there's some great stuff at cato.org


Cato is an ex-libertarian group now taken over by the Neo-cons.

sad but true.

Check out the other thread on it

USPatriot36
09-18-2007, 07:17 PM
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution declares: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment means that the federal government in no way is allowed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any Federal limitation, regulate or taxation of firearms is strictly unconstitutional.

If a State's constitution permits it, States may regulate firearms as the Contitution was meant to limit the Federal government to its very few inumerated powers and leave all other powers to the States or the people.

So any member of Congress has violated his oath of office if he votes for any limits on gun ownership. And any President who has signed a law is also in violation of his oath of office.

The most important check against government officials violating their Oath is the American people. We are all entrusted with selecting Congressmen, Senators and Presidents who will uphold the Constitution and to deny re-election of anyone who violates their oath.

Eroberer
09-18-2007, 07:41 PM
The Constitution does not grant me my rights, therefore the federal government cannot take them away from me.

Now if that is the case, why believe that the state can do so? The state has no right to regulate guns just like the federal government has none.