Why Do Christians Hate the U.S. Constitution

Will this work for you?

 

In David’s defense, I'm sure Fox News probably said exactly what he is claiming but of course that is like a group of chickens trusting Colonel Sanders. Now it seems that David has ended up breaded, deep fried, and served with a side of coleslaw.
You’d think with all the proof he claims is out there, he’d have no problem posting some blog that made the same claim and we all know how vetted blogs are.

View attachment 384

 

How about this?

 

Funny, no mention of a "thorn" anywhere in his comments.

 

I'm looking to confirm this as a direct quote, but how about this one?

http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/

 

This is one the better examples of how the RW'ers will say anything but offer no proof because they can't, won't, or simply don't live in the world of facts. So what else is new?

 

If the Constitution doesn't allow Obama to redistribute the wealth, then I would say it's definitely a thorn in his side.

 

So a quote has to be direct in order for you to accept it, no paraphrases allowed, even if the two concepts are identical? Tell me where in any of our posts where he says that he embraces the Constitution and that its precepts are inviolable. I'll be honest with you: I can't listen to enough Obama videos to find an exact quote--I listen to him for more than a few seconds and my stress levels and blood pressure both sky rocket.

 

The original accusation:

The response (by rlm, a quote by Obama transcribed from video): (currently post #43, full quote is currently in post #41)

If I'm not mistaken, these comments by Obama are in the context of the Civil Rights Movement, on how the Constitution had flaws, and IMO does not constitute proof that the Constitution has been a "thorn in his side".

It's likely this claim (of the Constitution being a thorn in Obama's side) originally was stated to enhance the "redistribution of wealth" accusations Republicans were making during Obama's run for President.

Another response (by HM) was a link that contains the following accusation:

This accusation, if true, would in part support the original accusation. I found a transcription of the radio interview in question:

IMO, this doesn't support the original accusation. IMO, the original accusation (in 2008?) was made to incite a state of fear into the Republican base in order to defeat Obama in the election. IMO, the accusation is not based on fact.

 

There are a whole bunch of IMO's in there. Too bad, but your opinion only counts to you. Obviously, there are more than one who disagree with that opinion.

 

I think he doesn't come right out and say it's a "thorn in his side." That would be political suicide if he'd said it and he would not be so stupid as to say it so bluntly. However, his comments and his actions as president clearly indicate that he does not support the American Constitution in the strictest sense of the phrase. It's no mistake that I dislike Barack Obama and have never supported him as president or recognized him as "my" president; however, I feel that I am putting as little spin on my position as I possibly can when I make that assertion.

 

Now to the point of this issue, the statement of a fact versus that of an opinion:

David wrote:

The specific use of "has mentioned" is at issue. It suggests that Obama himself spoke the words. In reality, it was an interpretation, IMO, an intentional misinterpretation. The claim David made can not be supported by fact, since the words were never actually spoken.

Intentional misrepresention of fact is something everyone should discourage, not endorse.

 

No disagreement there. However, to take a charitable position on it, it is possible that David either misremembered the statement or went by something that was stated in an article. I agree that we all need to avoid deliberately misrepresenting our positions here and to fact-check ourselves when making absolute statements.

 

Hence the word "quote" at least using your language. Even a paraphrase has to keep the orginal meaning intact which I can find no evidence for. But, feel free to find the Obama quote that has the exact same meaning as " a thorn in his side". I didn't even hear a statement from this 2001 interview where he would even suggest as president, which he certainly wasn't at the time, that he himself was being somehow constrained by the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Obama wasn't even an elected official in 2001. He was just a lawyer at the time. This contrasts sharply with what David was saying about Obama given that he wasn't even in office at the time of the interview.

 

How many of you think that your constitution is a perfect document in every respect?
How many of you think that President Obama is the 1st ever President of the United States to feel confined by this document?
Honest answers only please

 

Perfect? Certainly not. But, it's up to the people to change it if they want. Does Obama feel that he's confined by the Constitution? Who can say? But, if he DOES feel confined by it, well that's just too damned bad. He took an oath to uphold it.

 

I do not believe it's perfect, but in general it's quite excellent, and was even more so back when it was created.

In today's World though I'd say the three branches of power (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) have become mired in an endless battle for political power that has essentially crippled the government's ability to do meaningful business, something the creaters of the document would almost certainly be horrified to see.

 

I see that no one thought to answer the question "if you thought he was the 1st President to feel confined by it"
One point that raise questions for me was what Coin said "

it's up to the people to change it if they want" Have you ever had a referendum on a Constitutional change or have the changes simply been passed by Politicians? had a look on line but coudnt find anything other than the list of changes​

​

 

As representatives of the people, our legislatures can pass amendments. Then, the amendment goes to the states (again "the people") for ratification:

The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

 

Thanks Coin much appreciated, it did have me wondering just how they did go about changing things