Kim Davis

[Guest]

Lawbreaker.
Offends anyone who believes in the constitution.
Religious terrorist.
Don't tell me this is ok and shout Save our guns based on the 2d amendment.
Imagine the value of our constitution if this ??!?. Don't get fired for failing to do her job. Uuigggghh

[Guest]

Lawbreaker.
Offends anyone who believes in the constitution.
Religious terrorist.
Don't tell me this is ok and shout Save our guns based on the 2d amendment.
Imagine the value of our constitution if this ??!?. Don't get fired for failing to do her job. Uuigggghh

So, are you trying to say that you aren't a big fan? It's kinda hard to tell.

[Guest]

She is a dolt who does not understand when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is immediately the law of the land.

[Guest]

This RIGHT has been long fought for the LGBT community and even when upheld by the highest court in the land, this disrespectful jerk says NO! She has no business working in a public office sworn to defend all the rights of all the people of this great nation. When you refuse to follow the laws of this country, you give up your right to represent any of the law abiding US citizens. PUT HER BEHIND BARS with the rest off he criminals.

[Guest]

This RIGHT has been long fought for the LGBT community and even when upheld by the highest court in the land, this disrespectful jerk says NO! She has no business working in a public office sworn to defend all the rights of all the people of this great nation. When you refuse to follow the laws of this country, you give up your right to represent any of the law abiding US citizens. PUT HER BEHIND BARS with the rest off he criminals.

Well, there should be plenty of room since your liberal president is going to let out 6,000 drug dealers.

[Guest]

Well, there should be plenty of room since your liberal president is going to let out 6,000 drug dealers.

She is far worse for the security of this country than any pot head. Try again!

[Guest]

Sorry, find this thread and this topic to be so misguided and uninformed.

Of course she needs to obey the law. She asked for an accomodation and yep, she must follow the law but this is all a trumped up media event. Couple comes back many times, is treated with courtesy and then shows up with cameras.

Is this really an important issue to waste your breath on.

How about the people dying in Syria or the middle east on fire or our economy and unemployment and on it could go, but this one lady in one place has your attention.

[Guest]

She is far worse for the security of this country than any pot head. Try again!

Please explain why?

[Guest]

She is far worse for the security of this country than any pot head. Try again!

Are speaking about Hillary Clinton or Kim Davis?

[Guest]

Has she been a devout follower of Christ her entire life?

[Guest]

Please explain why?

Really, you don't understand this. Wow, you need more help than I can give you. If that was humor LOL.

[Guest]

She is far worse for the security of this country than any pot head. Try again!

The security of the country is at stake? Please. Now, that's funny!

[Guest]

The security of the country is at stake? Please. Now, that's funny!

I think you misunderstood what she meant. She did not say the security of the country was at stake or even compromised. We must read carefully in order to make coherent replies.

[Guest]

Lawbreaker.
Offends anyone who believes in the constitution.
Religious terrorist.
Don't tell me this is ok and shout Save our guns based on the 2d amendment.
Imagine the value of our constitution if this ??!?. Don't get fired for failing to do her job. Uuigggghh

Seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. She should do her job without letting her personal religious beliefs interfere with the performance of her duties but she is hardly a "terrorist" of any kind.

[Guest]

Liberals want to throw a woman in jail because she didn't do her job. And by the way, there was no instruction or new forms to account for gay marriage yet, when she refused. She could be relieved of her job, but she didn't break a law. There is no law that says she must do her job or go to jail.

On the other hand, liberals want to protect Hilary, who is a felon and no doubt a felon that just hasn't been convicted yet. There are felony laws for what she did. She deserves to go to jail for a very long time, but liberals think national security is a lark and not to be taken seriously.

So, a Democrat didn't do her job and she should be jailed and a cabinet member committed multiple felony offenses dealing with national security and should be left alone because she said it is all just a Republican conspiracy.

This is a lame thread and anyone wishing to give it any more time obviously doesn't have enough to do.

[Guest]

She needs a haircut, a makeover and a trip to Barney's. Her husband should stop dressing like a scarecrow.

[Guest]

This thread is little more than chum on the water....and about as much sense.

[Guest]

She is a dolt, and a pathetic laughing stock. I agree, we have better things to spend our time on.

[Guest]

Sorry, but I feel that God has a lot more authority here than 5 non-elected judges. They just don't mean much to me. I will stand behind her as well as lots of other US Citizens.

[Guest]

Funny how the Dems threw her to the wolves, just because she mentioned "God." That should prove something to you. Typical of liberals to be against religion. Any other time (ie., Hilary) they would be making outrageous excuses for her.

[Guest]

:mademyday:nSorry, but I feel that God has a lot more authority here than 5 non-elected judges. They just don't mean much to me. I will stand behind her as well as lots of other US Citizens.

When the Supreme Court justices decide for the conservative viewpoints, you agree that they should be followed, I presume.

[Guest]

On the other hand, liberals want to protect Hilary, who is a felon and no doubt a felon that just hasn't been convicted yet. There are felony laws for what she did. She deserves to go to jail for a very long time, but liberals think national security is a lark and not to be taken seriously.
.

Hey, get back to the other 6 dwarfs, Dopey!

Hillary has not been arrained in court, not been tried, not been found guilty (except by Faux News stooges) so she cannot be a felon.

You, on the other hand, have been found not guilty by reason of insanity!:boom:

[Guest]

Hey, get back to the other 6 dwarfs, Dopey!

Hillary has not been arrained in court, not been tried, not been found guilty (except by Faux News stooges) so she cannot be a felon.

You, on the other hand, have been found not guilty by reason of insanity!:boom:

That hickamajig at the end always does it for me.

Just a sucker for intellectuals.

[Guest]

Hey, get back to the other 6 dwarfs, Dopey!

Hillary has not been arrained in court, not been tried, not been found guilty (except by Faux News stooges) so she cannot be a felon.

You, on the other hand, have been found not guilty by reason of insanity!:boom:

She is clearly a felon, just not a convicted felon as you imply.

[Guest]

Her emails being plastered all over the internet must be a Republican conspiracy and couldn't be her's. From what I have read of those emails, she is easily a felon, just not convicted yet. And knowing the CLintons, she won't be convicted of a felony. Just because a person is not convicted, does not make then innocent. And idiots that voted for Obama will probably be stupid enough to elect Hilary too. She has no regard for national security and most liberals I know could care less also. After all , they live in their little purple haze Obama Utopia and are oblivious to the real world.

[Guest]

This RIGHT has been long fought for the LGBT community and even when upheld by the highest court in the land, this disrespectful jerk says NO! She has no business working in a public office sworn to defend all the rights of all the people of this great nation. When you refuse to follow the laws of this country, you give up your right to represent any of the law abiding US citizens. PUT HER BEHIND BARS with the rest off he criminals.

Fags on the Supreme Court should not have been able to rule " conflict of personnel interest" just like the fag that over turned Cala voters in the I think 9th district court. Nobody should be able to over rule the citizens votes.

[Guest]

This RIGHT has been long fought for the LGBT community and even when upheld by the highest court in the land, this disrespectful jerk says NO! She has no business working in a public office sworn to defend all the rights of all the people of this great nation. When you refuse to follow the laws of this country, you give up your right to represent any of the law abiding US citizens. PUT HER BEHIND BARS with the rest off he criminals.

Dear Guest: What right are you addressing? It can't be marriage because the homosexual community has had that right for a very long time. It can't be survivorship issues because those legal issues have been available for a very long time.

The highest court in the land a) had no right to make a decision on this issue as it should have been left to each state to decide b) in making its decision it placed politic ahead of facts and voted based on judicial activism c) made law were none was ever intended based on the anticipated reaction by the the majority of people who did not want the definition of marriage

As to Kim Davis' reaction first let me state I am not interested in defending any person but rather the issue itself.

The law of the land based on Dredd Scott and other property laws for hundreds of years was that slavery was right and slaves were property and in fact so were women. So you agree that all those acts of disobedience marches riots etc were illegal and those laws should have continued on the books?

Were those people who disagree with the Supreme Courts decision also wrong in their protest?

Now whether you agree or disagree so far please explain why Muslim are allowed all their rights to exercise their beliefs and not Christian. Why is a person can make a religious claim of non-killing conscious objector and escape military service for so many years prior to the all volunteer military.

Explain why its a right to legalize drug use but not a right to legally own firearms?

Should we count the ways in which a conservative point of view is non-existent and in educational institutions and in fact if a conservative student attempt to exercise his/her beliefs they are intimated with the threats of failing grades.

Why on college campuses are males presumed guilty of rape and denied their due process?

Finally you claim a great believe in the laws of this nation and demand criminals be sent to jail so shouldn't those Planned Parenthood participants guilty of the unborn slaughter and selling of baby parts be given their just punishment ? If found guilty if breaches and accepting illegal contributions, etc shouldn't Hillary Clinton go to jail? Is it only Christians who practice their faith go to jail. Heck I bet you believe Kim Davis ought to be fed to the lions

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

IMO this should of been nation vote and not decided by any district or Supreme Court. If the majority wants it then that will be the law which can't be over turned. That way you keep special and personal interest out of it. This is what you get when few decide for the majority.

[Guest]

IMO this should of been nation vote and not decided by any district or Supreme Court. If the majority wants it then that will be the law which can't be over turned. That way you keep special and personal interest out of it. This is what you get when few decide for the majority.

And you are definitely entitled to your opinion. However, according to the Constitution, that is not how it is done in the USA. The constiutionality of the law of the land is decided by the Supreme Court.

[Guest]

And you are definitely entitled to your opinion. However, according to the Constitution, that is not how it is done in the USA. The constiutionality of the law of the land is decided by the Supreme Court.

You can have your civil union. That's what a court house marriage is. But, real marriage is blessed by God and he ain't gonna bless gay marriage. God's word, the Bible will tell you that. Gays might even get a radical church preacher to marry them, but it won't mean anything. You can force law, but you can't force God's endorsement, no matter how you try to convince normal people that deviant actions are normal. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and minorities should be offended that they are grouped in with deviant abnormal behavior, when it comes to civil rights progress. The Supreme in Supreme Court does not make them supreme to the Lord, and America is going to find that out real fast.

[Guest]

Did all of you gay defenders know that gay men can never donate blood? I suppose the supreme court will decide that's wrong too.

[Guest]

You can have your civil union. That's what a court house marriage is. But, real marriage is blessed by God and he ain't gonna bless gay marriage. God's word, the Bible will tell you that. Gays might even get a radical church preacher to marry them, but it won't mean anything. You can force law, but you can't force God's endorsement, no matter how you try to convince normal people that deviant actions are normal. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and minorities should be offended that they are grouped in with deviant abnormal behavior, when it comes to civil rights progress. The Supreme in Supreme Court does not make them supreme to the Lord, and America is going to find that out real fast.

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, it is not the USA.

The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional or not and does not - and should not - take religious beliefs into the equation.

[Guest]

Did all of you gay defenders know that gay men can never donate blood? I suppose the supreme court will decide that's wrong too.

Please go to fda.gov to read their new proposed guidelines on this topic. It is changing to allow it. It has not yet been implemented but guidelines have been published for comments in The Federal Register.

[Guest]

I read it at One Blood every 2 weeks

[Guest]

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, it is not the USA.

The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional or not and does not - and should not - take religious beliefs into the equation.

They don't take the majority's view either. As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?

[Guest]

They don't take the majority's view either. As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?

Please tell us what Supreme Court decision that Pres. Obama has not listened to.

Be specific and cite the Supreme Court case.

No, the Supreme Court does not always use the popular view but relies on the interpretation of the Constitution. That is their Constitutional duty.

Thanks.

[Guest]

Please tell us what Supreme Court decision that Pres. Obama has not listened to.

Be specific and cite the Supreme Court case.

No, the Supreme Court does not always use the popular view but relies on the interpretation of the Constitution. That is their Constitutional duty.

Thanks.

An easy one without having to look it up is the ban on drilling in the Gulf..

Yes, THEY interpret the law as it pertains to the constitution. Their opinion as so-called experts. A lot of other judges would interpret differently. The only difference between them and another judge is they are politically appointed by the president and politically confirmed by congress. It's all a matter of opinion, and you what they say about opinions, right?

[Guest]

An easy one without having to look it up is the ban on drilling in the Gulf..

Yes, THEY interpret the law as it pertains to the constitution. Their opinion as so-called experts. A lot of other judges would interpret differently. The only difference between them and another judge is they are politically appointed by the president and politically confirmed by congress. It's all a matter of opinion, and you what they say about opinions, right?

I could not find the Supreme Court case regarding gulf drilling and how Pres. Obama disregarded the decision. Link it, please.

Yes, the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. Each president will try and appoint justices who agree with his/her views. The justices have a lifetime appointment.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land. This is NOT a theocracy! It is not anarchy! The laws set forth in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Wicca, etc. do not count here.

[Guest]

I could not find the Supreme Court case regarding gulf drilling and how Pres. Obama disregarded the decision. Link it, please.

Yes, the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. Each president will try and appoint justices who agree with his/her views. The justices have a lifetime appointment.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land. This is NOT a theocracy! It is not anarchy! The laws set forth in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Wicca, etc. do not count here.

Actually, you are partially wrong. The Supreme Court DOES take religion into consideration when making some decisions. Remember, we have the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And there have been many court decisions based on one's religious freedom. But, I get what you mean.

The decisions "rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land" until another court decides differently. The court does change when judges die or retire.

We have three branches of government, and the president is NOT king, emperor, supreme ruler, etc.....regardless of what he thinks. Obama abuses his right to executive order, more than any other president. It does not matter the quantity of EO's signed, but the power and effect they have. This King of Czars has abused his power on several occasions and he will go down in history as the worst, most abusive and divisive presidential experiment ever.

As far as your first point saying you can't find anything related to my statement, that's your problem. You asked, I told you, and it is up to you to dispute my statement with countering research. I am not going to do it for you. I am tired of doing the work for liberals. And it was a Federal Court order that Obama violated, that may not have gone to the Supreme Court. But, it just shows one incident of many that Obama blatantly disregarded in contempt. He even said publicly that he felt that the Supreme Court is wrong on more than one case.

[Guest]

There is one branch of government that makes law, and that is congress. Not the Supreme COurt, and not the president.

[Guest]

Actually, you are partially wrong. The Supreme Court DOES take religion into consideration when making some decisions. Remember, we have the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And there have been many court decisions based on one's religious freedom. But, I get what you mean.

The decisions "rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land" until another court decides differently. The court does change when judges die or retire.

We have three branches of government, and the president is NOT king, emperor, supreme ruler, etc.....regardless of what he thinks. Obama abuses his right to executive order, more than any other president. It does not matter the quantity of EO's signed, but the power and effect they have. This King of Czars has abused his power on several occasions and he will go down in history as the worst, most abusive and divisive presidential experiment ever.

As far as your first point saying you can't find anything related to my statement, that's your problem. You asked, I told you, and it is up to you to dispute my statement with countering research. I am not going to do it for you. I am tired of doing the work for liberals. And it was a Federal Court order that Obama violated, that may not have gone to the Supreme Court. But, it just shows one incident of many that Obama blatantly disregarded in contempt. He even said publicly that he felt that the Supreme Court is wrong on more than one case.

First he defied a federal court order, after his administration had phonies up some documents and got caught relative to derailing in the Gulf. You can read what it cost in jobs, etc at this link.

Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-repeatedly-defied-federal-court-with-gulf-oil-policies/article/2536401)

He has also violated federal rulings on immigration more than once as I recall.

[Guest]

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

[Guest]

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

You're kidding right? Do you not read other posts than yours? If you don't realize that Obama violates federal law as well as court orders, then you have your head in the sand. Do some research. Prove me wrong, if you can. But, you can't. You know that my statement is true.

Federal court found that Obama's moratorium on drilling in the gulf was illegal. He was warned, but he maintained it anyway.
Obama violated immigration law.
Obama sicked the IRS on the Tea Party. Tell me he didn't know it was going on and I will tell you that you have a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing. Therefore a failed leadership.
Obama's attorney general sued AZ for upholding federal law.
Obama is not enforcing federal law pertaining to immigration.
Obama's SecState violated many federal laws pertaining to the safe storage and handling of classified material. A national security issue. He didn't know? Is he stupid or what?

It doesn't take much to use Google. You seem to be smart if not lazy, so you can find all of this on the Internet, if your eyes have been closed to the news media for the past seven years.

[Guest]

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?i


Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

How about Cala. ( of all places Ca.) They vote it down and higher district judge overturned the voters? Nobody including the president should be able to overturn voting citizens

As on poster stated: the word has several meanings depending on what country or century your in.

Fag. (Noun) slang (2) offensive, a contemptible or dislikable person. The word fag has several meanings which IMO suits the surpreme counts justices that are political appointed which can be predicted 9 times out of 10 how they will vote due to there political appointed affiliation.

[Guest]

How about Cala. ( of all places Ca.) They vote it down and higher district judge overturned the voters? Nobody including the president should be able to overturn voting citizens

As on poster stated: the word has several meanings depending on what country or century your in.

Fag. (Noun) slang (2) offensive, a contemptible or dislikable person. The word fag has several meanings which IMO suits the surpreme counts justices that are political appointed which can be predicted 9 times out of 10 how they will vote due to there political appointed affiliation.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127683]
Obama sicked the IRS on the Tea Party. Tell me he didn't know it was going on and I will tell you that you have a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing. Therefore a failed leadership.QUOTE]

A small veering off the path here - but quite important.

Florida Goobernator Rick Scott used to be CEO of the huge hospital consortium.

They got fined about 2 Billion dollars for scamming Medicare. Scott said even though he was CEO, he knew nothing of the scam.

In your own words, a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing is a failed leadership - yet Scott was able to stay out of jail and become Goobernator of Florida.

[Guest]

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land at the moment the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court.

Davis had no choice but to comply with it as her sworn duty as a public official.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127683]
Obama sicked the IRS on the Tea Party. Tell me he didn't know it was going on and I will tell you that you have a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing. Therefore a failed leadership.QUOTE]

A small veering off the path here - but quite important.

Florida Goobernator Rick Scott used to be CEO of the huge hospital consortium.

They got fined about 2 Billion dollars for scamming Medicare. Scott said even though he was CEO, he knew nothing of the scam.

In your own words, a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing is a failed leadership - yet Scott was able to stay out of jail and become Goobernator of Florida.

because he is a lot richer and significantly smarter!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127683]
Obama sicked the IRS on the Tea Party. Tell me he didn't know it was going on and I will tell you that you have a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing. Therefore a failed leadership.QUOTE]

A small veering off the path here - but quite important.

Florida Goobernator Rick Scott used to be CEO of the huge hospital consortium.

They got fined about 2 Billion dollars for scamming Medicare. Scott said even though he was CEO, he knew nothing of the scam.

In your own words, a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing is a failed leadership - yet Scott was able to stay out of jail and become Goobernator of Florida.

Dear Guest: I am not in the habit of defending politicians but for the sake of fairness let me point out that Scott's corporation merged with another firm and it was the latter firm accused of medicare fraud billing. so it is plausible that Scott did not have information concerning the past practices of this firm?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land at the moment the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court.

Davis had no choice but to comply with it as her sworn duty as a public official.

The court made an interpretation of the constitution. Not the "law of the land." Even if allowed, that does not require a court house to issue a marriage license. It just says that deviants have the right to get married. It does not require the church to perform the marriage. It only says they have the right to get married. I don't believe there is a law that states that if Davis does not issue a license, she will go to jail. I don't believe there is a statutory law that says that if she does not perform her job then she will go to jail. If you could go to jail for not performing you job, then Obama should have been thrown in jail a long time ago, for not enforcing immigration law.

Since Davis was elected(?) to her position, they probably have to use a different means to relieve her of her employment, other than outright firing her. If her employer deemed that she was wrong, then that is between them, not the court.

She should not have opened her mouth and she wouldn't be in this trouble. She could have rightly stated that she had no instruction on how to handle the documentation for a gay marriage. She could have told them to come back after proper instruction was provided to her. She handled it wrong and she will likely lose her job. But to put her in jail without a direct court order with her name on it, is illegal. Just because gays wish to punish anyone that doesn't agree with them, is not going to convince acceptance. It will likely do the opposite. Those that tolerated their deviant behavior in the past will likely become less tolerant the more they are forced to accept it as a normal behavior.

[Guest]

How about Cala. ( of all places Ca.) They vote it down and higher district judge overturned the voters? Nobody including the president should be able to overturn voting citizens

As on poster stated: the word has several meanings depending on what country or century your in.

Fag. (Noun) slang (2) offensive, a contemptible or dislikable person. The word fag has several meanings which IMO suits the surpreme counts justices that are political appointed which can be predicted 9 times out of 10 how they will vote due to there political appointed affiliation.

And right now there are 3 far left liberals and one maybe two rhino's on the surpreme courts.
IMO the two laws that need upmost attending are TERM LIMITS, for senate, house, and surpreme courts justices. That right there would solve 95% of most problems. The outer would be outlawing Lobbists. Then we might have chance at citzens representation.

[Guest]

And right now there are 3 far left liberals and one maybe two rhino's on the surpreme courts.
IMO the two laws that need upmost attending are TERM LIMITS, for senate, house, and surpreme courts justices. That right there would solve 95% of most problems. The outer would be outlawing Lobbists. Then we might have chance at citzens representation.

Read the Constitution of the United States! It would have to be amended before your ideas of term limits could be implemented.

[Guest]

Read the Constitution of the United States! It would have to be amended before your ideas of term limits could be implemented.

So, what's the problem with that? Isn't that their job?

[Guest]

So, what's the problem with that? Isn't that their job?

Have you ever looked at how the profess goes for the Constitution to be amended?

[Guest]

Have you ever looked at how the profess goes for the Constitution to be amended?

All it takes is an Executive Order, right? I mean, Obama writes his own law whenever he feels like it, so the next president can too.

Seriously though, do your really think that anyone in America is going to stand in the way of a constitutional amendment on term limits?

[Guest]

All it takes is an Executive Order, right? I mean, Obama writes his own law whenever he feels like it, so the next president can too.

Seriously though, do your really think that anyone in America is going to stand in the way of a constitutional amendment on term limits?
Here is a chart of Executive Orders by President. Common practice in the past and will be so in the future


Executive Orders (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php)

[Guest]

Seriously, do you honestly think that Congressmen would bring up the motion to amend the Constitution that would limit their time in Congress?

:a20:

[Guest]

Seriously, do you honestly think that Congressmen would bring up the motion to amend the Constitution that would limit their time in Congress?

:a20:

It's possible. That may be something that the Freedom Coalition would do, or the Tea Party. There are some out there that are working toward a more accountable government.

Of course, the liberals are working toward a more gov dominating society, where the gov nanny controls everyone, giving the gov more control over their lives.