Question:
After 8 years of Bush, Would a Constitutional Lawyer be a good choice for President?
Datx
2008-07-31 20:54:49 UTC
McCains attacks Obama for not having enough experience but fails to mention Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer and actual did lectures on the Constitution at universities. After 8 years of Bush stomping on the constitution with Acts like HR 5122, that allow him to declare martial law, don't you think a constitutional lawyer would be a wise choice?
Nineteen answers:
anonymous
2008-07-31 21:05:31 UTC
Yes I sure do think a constitutional lawyer would be a good choice after Bush. After all Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." And here is Obama: ""I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser." We need to bring this country back to what our Founding Forefathers established. Disrespecting the Constitution is a slap in the face of our Founding Forefathers and those who fought bravely for our independence. We have waited long enough for someone to stand up in defense of the Constitution. Obama is our man!
Donald C
2008-07-31 21:26:17 UTC
As a lawyer, Idiot Barry wasn't even able to secure himself a job in that field. He instead became a "community organizer" (what is that, a street gang leader?). Therefore, he is a failure at Constitutional Law.

Laws pertaining to political candidates overseas, a very big part of Constitutional Law, have been ignored by Idiot Barry already.

He violated the Logan Act of 1948 just last week. This law states very clearly that a candidate can NOT represent himself as the President, if he is not the President. He cannot push his political ideas on other leaders of foreign countries, as if they were his own. He pushed his stupid withdrawl ideas on President Maliki, while Not being the POTUS, or the Sec of State, or anyone else appointed to do so officially by the President.

He obviously is not so competent as a constitutional lawyer.



Now, for the job, included in being the POTUS, which is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and leader of the western alliances....

Where in his resume does it say he has EVER worn a uniform, let alone had command experience?



For your additional details, you are criticizing the Patriot Act. This is an act that has successfully protected America and its allies, with similar copy acts, for nearly 8 years. Without these laws, all would be chaos. LA Ex, Various bridges, numerous aircraft at a time, etc. would have been damaged or destroyed, with horrific loss of life.

These minor inconveniences, which you shouldn't worry about unless you are hiding something, are very necessary, and perfectly legal, since we are at war.

Torture? To the terrorist murderers at Gitmo? Are you kidding? Information gained was probably very useful, and a tiny price to pay, for the possible saving of thousands of lives. Would YOU like to be nice to them? How about some of these monsters come and stay at YOUR house?

There is another law, called "Aid to the Civil Power". Look it up. Governors and the President are very much permitted to use their state national guards in time of crisis.

Crime of thought? You mean, if you could stop 9/11 from happening in its planning stages, you would rather let it happen, then arrest the bits and parts of the terrorists later? Are you really that naive?



Idiot Barry, the failed constitutional lawyer, who can't evidently read or understand the Logan Act, is not a choice.

The Patriot Act is there for America's security, as well as its allies' security. Grow up.
SCOTT M
2008-07-31 21:22:03 UTC
Barack Obama is NOT a constitutional lawyer. ALL law students must take one or more courses in constitutional law, but Obama did not specialize in constitutional law. He practiced law only briefly and he was a civil rights lawyer. I took three biology courses in college, but that doesn't make me a biologist.



If Obama was such a promising student of constitutional law, why was he one of the few (if any) editors of the Harvard Law Review who were not offered a position as a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice?



Are YOU going to define "torture?" Habeas corpus was not deemed to apply to enemy combatants.



Bush DID NOT "pass a law through congress allowing him to deploy soldiers in the US," nor did HE make crimes of thought a felony. The president is not a member of congress and does not vote on legislation.



Get your facts straight or shut up.



BTW, Richard Nixon was a lawyer. So is Bill Clinton (disbarred, but....).
O2BQuiteRite
2008-07-31 21:03:33 UTC
Oh, puhleez. McCain isn't in attack mode. He's being truthful. B. Hussein DOES NOT HAVE enough experience in the governmental arena. Can you call someone who's been a STATE senator for 3 years experienced? What does he know of dealing with foreign leaders, other than telling them what they want to hear? What does he know of the underbelly current in Washington, DC and how to survive, manipulate it, etc? A BIG FAT ZERO! The ACLU stomps on the Constitution. Do you think that the "politcally correct" interpretations put to the constitution today are really what our forefathers intended? NOT! In just one area alone that is sooooooooo obvious, they NEVER intended separation of church and state to be interpreted the way it is today. And, that is just one small example of misinterpretation of what the constituion was meant to be. In conclusion, absolutely, positively NO to your question regarding a constitutional lawyer (whatever that is) being a wise choice.
jwthoughts
2008-07-31 20:58:57 UTC
Guaranteed you have not read HR 5122. You only believed the liberal talking points. If you read the bill, you would find that it says nothing of the sort, and it takes as much imagination to claim that it does as it takes to believe that Nostradamus was a great prophet.



ADDED:

Torture...BS, the liberals define loud music and sleep depravation as torture. That is pathetic.

restricting Habeas Corpus...this is guaranteed for CITIZENS of the US, and has not been restricted for CITIZENS.

wire tapping (defies the 4th amendment)...funny, Clinton used it sectretly, and Bush brought the EXACT same process out in the open, and the liberals want to crucify Bush for it.

passed a law through congress allowing him to deploy soldiers in the US (HR 5122)...This bill does NO SUCH THING, and if you claim to have read it, and still believe this, then you should take a couple of classes in law interpretation because it does not say that.

has made crimes of thought (i.e extremism) a felony (HR 1955)...again, BS Propoganda from the left. 1955 does NO SUCH THING!

You really need to learn to read!
anonymous
2008-07-31 21:33:57 UTC
To be honest, that's what bureaucrats are there for. It couldn't hurt that he's well-versed in the law, but it doesn't need to be a feature of a good leader.



Still...whatever happens...yes the Constitution has been shat on, and it needs fixin'.



It has been shat on with such insidious stealth that people think America's a Christian country. What a load of rich creamery butter.
Fed Up MacAlpin
2008-07-31 21:00:53 UTC
The correct term is "civil rights attorney", not constitutional lawyer. Practicing law for a few years, or teaching it, is not in itself sufficient experience to become President of the United States. There are many people who have practiced law who would not make good Presidents.
danielss429
2008-07-31 20:58:22 UTC
No, it has the lawyers sitting on the bench of Supreme Court that has butchered our Constitution, and rights as it is, why would we want a constitutional lawyer in control of the White House?
anonymous
2008-07-31 21:06:58 UTC
I think Bush sucks on trying to take away Americans rights. After 8 years of his crap, I don't know how anyone would want to vote Repuke.
anonymous
2008-07-31 20:58:52 UTC
It's a nice bit of experience that would be well welcomed in Washington, at least from a citizen's perspective.
Freedle S
2008-07-31 20:58:38 UTC
Obama believes that judges should change the founders intent as times change. That is wrong as their is a way to legitimately change the constitution. He has no respect for the constitution and you think he would be a wise choice?



fs
anonymous
2008-07-31 21:17:30 UTC
You obviously haven't read Obama's plans to disassemble that CONSTITUTION via the judiciary. You take it for granted that he will protect the constitution? No, he will studiously do away with it, as he has spoken about.
anonymous
2008-07-31 21:08:58 UTC
Excellent point. There's a lot of damage to undo.
kevin s
2008-07-31 20:58:44 UTC
Nope

I want another cowboy in the white house.



We are no where near having martial law.
anonymous
2008-07-31 20:59:03 UTC
Definitely.......... Bush and his administration have trampled all over the Constitution. It will be great to have a president who actually believes and honors the Constitution.
anonymous
2008-07-31 20:57:22 UTC
Tell me what has Bush done to viloate the Us conistution?
another_random_poster
2008-07-31 21:03:48 UTC
I think it would be very wise.
littleorphanandy
2008-07-31 21:03:46 UTC
no it will be a welcomed relief
Warren T
2008-07-31 21:02:39 UTC
THEN WHY ARE THE LIBERALS AGAINST CONSITUTIONAL JUDGES?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...