Do Republicans hate Obama because he's black?
Did you see the tea party "veterans" who spoke after Ted Cruz did his grandstanding in front of the barricaded memorials? Saying things like, "Obama needs to put the Koran down, and get up off his knees."? How appalling is it, that these imbeciles are *STILL* pushing the racist garbage and Muslim crapola? Trump was *still* beating the birther dead horse in 2012. Then they swear it's NOT about racism. If it's NOT about racism.......then WHY all the racist rhetoric?
Does the Constitution allow the military to overthrow the Obama administration and the Democratic Party?
According to the Constitution the military is permitted to overthrow any party that is abusing their powers. The question is if Obama and the Democrats are abusing their powers? The answer is yes with out a doubt. The Democratic party has abused their powers when they used their government positions to allow their sponsors to use the airways, public schools, colleges, park systems, both Houses, the Judiciary and the Presidency to cause half of the citizens of the United States to act discriminatory against Christians so that they could create an atmosphere in which they could get away with the criminal act of fabricating the fallacious First Amendment redefinition called "separation of church and state" so that they could create a Constitutional mandate to force Christians to act like Atheists in public and thereby conform to the Socialists goal to establish Atheism as the state religion in America and so that their Socialist judges could get away with the criminal act of citing the legal precedence of other nations in order to change the laws in America to conform with the Socialist's agenda to legalize the Socialist mores in America.
Why didnt republicans like Obama Care?
Obama Care violates the constitution! The republicans could have done a better job, educating the public on how Obama Care violated the constitution, instead of obstructing!The ACA Patient Protection Affordable Healthcare Act, Protected Patients related to not discriminating with removing people off insurance plans! However they are still raising premiums on older people, which is another way to discriminate elderly by raising premiums so people can’t afford insurance & healthcare anyway!The Tier pay system of ACA also violates the constitution, towards income inequality & people not eligible for healthcare services.I would say individual people should be separated from corporations & companies! There are times I have made $12,000 a year, & I was not eligible for welfare or benefits, as a single woman with a child.The current ACA violates the American Disability Act, for people with injuries that are not visible, & who may not have a doctor record of injuries!EXAMPLE: I currently have swelling in my back, & I have a torn tissue from when my son was a baby, but I didn’t go to the doctor to get it marked in my records! I also fell, delivering toilet paper when I worked for a NAF job on Fort Riley! I didn’t report it! Now I have problems in my spine, which the tender spot near my tail bone is very sensitive when we get a lot of heat, then I get swelling in my body! The more swelling I get, the more I hear sounds, so my ears become sensitive to sounds, noise, vibrations! That creates another pain!
Is there any precedent for Republicans' calling for President Obama to not exercise his constitutional role of nominating a successor to Scalia?
While the unofficial “Thurmond Rule” specifies that no judicial nominees be confirmed in the last six months of a president’s term leading up to an election, there is no sound precedent for its use in this case. Though Republicans have signaled that they don’t believe President Obama has the authority to nominate a successor, technically speaking it is his constitutional duty:Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the President of the United States to appoint certain public officials [including Judges of the Supreme Court] with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate. Given that President Obama still has over ten months left in office, even the Thurmond Rule should not apply. Though the Senate can certainly reject nominees, there is no precedent for refusing to hear them, and an vacancy of such length is truly unusual. The process, as explained in my recent Now I Get It segment for Yahoo News, should play out as following: the President selects a nomineethe Senate Judiciary Committee sets a hearing for questioningthe Senate votes, with at least 60 votes needed to proceed to confirmationConfirming a nominee is difficult, if not impossible, when the Senate’s dominant party is opposite the President’s as it is today. But with Senators defending their seats in two dozen states in November, even hearing a nomination could be damaging to their support base.Would Scalia have cared for political expedience over the constitutional duty? Given his status as a constitutional originalist, many argue that he would not. Further, leaving the seat vacant will prevent the court from doing the full work required of it on important cases that will affect all American people.President Obama has said he will fulfill his duty to put up a nominee in spite of objections. The better question is, will the Senate fulfill theirs? To do so, they should at least hear and evaluate the nominee, even if the process ends in rejection.
Why do Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment?
Hi, It revolves around "anchor babies", which some people here on Y!A have describe as "illegal", but which would be more accurately described as a loophole if someone needs to be uncharitable about it. I'd describe it as the way the system works, personally. The rule is that anyone born in the US is a US citizen, so immigrants, who may or may not be here legally, might have children in the US. The baby is a US Citizen by virtue of being born here -- ignoring Mrs. Taitz's arguments -- and the parents are also entitled to stay by virtue of the infant's citizenship status. I like you additional quote. One has to wonder why not all the states have incorporated even the Bill of Rights in their state constitutions yet.
Is it unpatriotic to NOT support your President?
Patriotism is just another thing how to force you into doing something you don't want to do. They say, every citizen should be patriot. Then they say to be good patriot you must support your government. Some say to be good patriot you must support constitution. But then again, it must have been written by our government, it could not have just popped out of nowhere. Some say that you must support America to be good patriot, but again america is mainly ruled by government and as individual you don't have such a big impact on it. So the question is, what is patriotism? How can you be patriot, if you don't agree with decision they make? And if you don't agree because it is against your beliefs, you are not patriot, which instantly means your are traitor for you country? For me this whole Patriotism is just excuse for higher-ups to control you in way that is pleasant and acceptable for general public.
What is your opinion on the fact that two Republican attorney generals have urged a federal appeals court to uphold Obamacare?
Two State’s Attorneys General wrote to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals saying that to repeal Obamacare would be “disruptive”.It might, but that is totally irrelevant.The ONE JOB of SCOTUS, and all Courts lower courts as well, is to apply the Constitution objectively, as written, without any political bias or any other considerations except whether the statute conforms in all respects to the text and meaning of the Constitution.Obamacare clearly does not. Whether it is “disruptive” or not to revoke an unConstitutional Law must not be a consideration. It is not the job of courts to “fix” the consequences of bad laws. It is to strike down bad laws.Ask yourself, should SCOTUS not have revoked Plessy v Ferguson, a 65 year “settled law” that nobody had questioned for many decades, because eliminating racial Segregation in the United States would be “disruptive”? Repealing it certainly was, requiring armed soldiers in the streets, but who among us would have maintained racial Segregation in perpetuity because repealing it was “Disruptive”.Mic drop.These Attorneys General don’t have clue, and are dangerously interfering in matters they clearly don’t understand.
Why does obama support flag burning?
ok what you do is and i know this is complicated but--google obama voting record and lo and behold it's almost magic look for vote 189:sj res 12 voted 6/12/06
Why don't the Republicans find universal healthcare appealing?
Most Republicans have a far better grasp of basic economic and financial principles than Democrats and understand that there is no such thing as the “free” or “universal” health care that Democrats promise.The reason such a system hasn’t come to pass in the US so far is that as specifics of proposals become public Democrats eventually come to learn what Republicans know from the start: that there is no such thing as a free lunch and the promised benefits to them rarely represent a good trade off for what they’d lose and they end up joining Republicans in opposing such plans.Most Republicans would be happy to consider proposals to expand basic coverage to people who can’t afford it in a way that doesn’t requiring them losing access to the quality care they already have, severely damaging the economic engine they US healthcare system provides or granting petty federal bureaucrats license to invade their personal lives and dictate lifestyle choices to them among other things.But no such proposals have been officially made thus far.