the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

[IIFFOFRDB]

‘How Does Going From Being a Senator to a President Rewrite the Constitution?’: Trey Gowdy Explodes on Obama in Stirring Floor Speech

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-floor-speech/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU...&v=Qw0AsBanu-o

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Ignoring President Barack Obama’s veto threat, the House voted on Wednesday for a bill that would expedite congressional lawsuits against the chief executive for failure to enforce federal laws.

The vote was 233-181 in the Republican-led House as GOP lawmakers excoriated Obama for multiple changes to his 4-year-old health care law, steps he’s taken to allow young immigrants to remain in the United States and the administration’s resistance to defend the federal law banning gay marriage.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the ENFORCE the Law Act, delivered a fiery speech and read a series of statements by Obama when he was an Illinois senator in which he warned of the encroachment of the executive on the powers of the other branches of government.


“How does going from being a senator to a president rewrite the Constitution?” Gowdy asked. “What’s different from when he was a senator? Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s an amendment to the Constitution that I’ve missed. I try to keep up with those with regularity.”

Gowdy went on to argue that “process matters” in law enforcement, noting that evidence gathered with a legitimate search warrant is thrown out if an officer so much as accidentally checks the wrong box on the application.

“Even though he was well-intended, even though he had good motivations, even though he got the evidence — because process matters,” he added.

“We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the president swears allegiance to, to faithfully execute the law,” Gowdy continued. “If a president does not faithfully execute the law… what are our remedies?”

He then argued that Congress should do exactly what then-Sen. Obama suggested before he was president of the United States: “To go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all: ‘We don’t pass suggestions in this body. … We don’t pass ideas — we pass laws. And we expect them to be faithfully executed.”



.

[i'va biggen]

Another worthless wast of time it will not get through the Senate. More busy work.

[Yssup Rider]

Ignorant drooling fuck.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

For ONCE you are ABSOLUTELY correct. Congratulations!!! Not only my opinion, but the opinion of Supreme Court decisions and many lower court decisions over many, many decades. The right to bear arms is NOT absolute.

Yet it remains ONLY your opinion because the Supreme Court has NOT rendered an unambiguous decision, and that is why Wyoming's AG is bringing suit, Speedy.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet it remains ONLY your opinion because the Supreme Court has NOT rendered an unambiguous decision

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court did when they rendered an unambiguous decision on Obamacare. Yet you refuse to accept that decision.

Yep, you are one of the Idiot (identical) Twins. I believe you're the dumber of the two.

But it is an extremely low ceiling!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet it remains ONLY your opinion because the Supreme Court has NOT rendered an unambiguous decision, and that is why Wyoming's AG is bringing suit, Speedy.

I wasn't taking about any SPECIFIC case. Your statement:

you do not think that the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment imbues each and every citizen with the right to bear arms. You and your ilk's perverse interpretation that some provisions of the Bill of Rights are not equal to other provisions of the Bill of Rights is ignorant.

This statement and several others you have made in this thread imply that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. I am saying it is obviously not, based on PAST court decisions. Yes, the 2nd Amendment gives citizens MANY rights to bear arms, but those rights are limited. I am also saying that the AG of Wyoming should not be telling the state of N.J. how to run their business. If the citizens of N.J. believe that the laws governing CHLs in the state of N.J. are unconstitutional, then they should be the ones taking N.J to court. And then the Wyoming AG justifies his actions with some BS that if the CHL law in N.J. stands, then somehow the citizens of Wyoming will want stricter CHL laws. Totally convoluted reasoning. Somewhat like your's.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court did when they rendered an unambiguous decision on Obamacare. Yet you refuse to accept that decision.

Yep, you are one of the Idiot (identical) Twins. I believe you're the dumber of the two.

But it is an extremely low ceiling!

The Supreme Court has yet to deal with the abrogation of First Amendment rights wrought by Odumbocare, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASS-hat -- after all, it is taking a while for everyone to "read the law" since Congress passed it.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I wasn't taking about any SPECIFIC case. Your statement:

you do not think that the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment imbues each and every citizen with the right to bear arms. You and your ilk's perverse interpretation that some provisions of the Bill of Rights are not equal to other provisions of the Bill of Rights is ignorant.

This statement and several others you have made in this thread imply that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. I am saying it is obviously not, based on PAST court decisions. Yes, the 2nd Amendment gives citizens MANY rights to bear arms, but those rights are limited. I am also saying that the AG of Wyoming should not be telling the state of N.J. how to run their business. If the citizens of N.J. believe that the laws governing CHLs in the state of N.J. are unconstitutional, then they should be the ones taking N.J to court. And then the Wyoming AG justifies his actions with some BS that if the CHL law in N.J. stands, then somehow the citizens of Wyoming will want stricter CHL laws. Totally convoluted reasoning. Somewhat like your's.

Again, Speedy, by your duplicitous rationale, Brown vs Board of Education should only apply to Kansas and Roe vs Wade should hold in Texas. The Second and Fourteenth Amendment extends rights to ALL citizens residing in all states.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Supreme Court has yet to deal with the abrogation of First Amendment rights wrought by Odumbocare, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASS-hat -- after all, it is taking a while for everyone to "read the law" since Congress passed it.


Again, Speedy, by your duplicitous rationale, Brown vs Board of Education should only apply to Kansas and Roe vs Wade should hold in Texas. The Second and Fourteenth Amendment extends rights to ALL citizens.

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can your read and comprehend even the simplest of statements? The 2nd Amendment extends rights to all individuals. However, those rights are limited. A law in N.J. does not apply in Wyoming. When the SCOTUS ruled that the CHL law in N.Y was valid, it did not affect any state other than N.Y. Same thing will happen if the law in N.J. is upheld. Will not affect Wyoming in any way. If the CHL law in N.J is overturned , it will not affect CHL laws in any other state than N.J.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can your read and comprehend even the simplest of statements? The 2nd Amendment extends rights to all individuals. However, those rights are limited. A law in N.J. does not apply in Wyoming. When the SCOTUS ruled that the CHL law in N.Y was valid, it did not affect any state other than N.Y. Same thing will happen if the law in N.J. is upheld. Will not affect Wyoming in any way. If the CHL law in N.J is overturned , it will not affect CHL laws in any other state than N.J.

Of course you don't understand, Speedy. You never will understand, because you're so biased and you emphatically reject the text of the Second Amendment. You do not -- and never will -- recognize that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a guaranteed Civil Right of all law-abiding U.S. citizens not subject to the whims of your ilk to pick and choose who can bear arms.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Of course you don't understand, Speedy. You never will understand, because you're so biased and you emphatically reject the text of the Second Amendment. You do not -- and never will -- recognize that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a guaranteed Civil Right of all law-abiding U.S. citizens not subject to the whims of your ilk to pick and choose who can bear arms.

How many times do I have to tell you that it is NOT in any way MY ilk to pick and choose. What I believe and what you believe is totally irrelevant. It is the laws that have been passed by the states and upheld by the court systems that are relevant. Or in many cases not even challenged. A 16 year old in Texas cannot get a CHL. A person can't legally carry a gun into my office building, my Credit Union, or any other business which has a sign stating it is illegal to do so. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT????

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How many times do I have to tell you that it is NOT in any way MY ilk to pick and choose. What I believe and what you believe is totally irrelevant. It is the laws that have been passed by the states and upheld by the court systems that are relevant. Or in many cases not even challenged. A 16 year old in Texas cannot get a CHL. A person can't legally carry a gun into my office building, my Credit Union, or any other business which has a sign stating it is illegal to do so. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT????

The right to bear arms doesn't stop at the domicile threshold, do you understand that?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The right to bear arms doesn't stop at the domicile threshold, do you understand that?

According to laws passed in many states it does. Do YOU understand that? Again, it does not matter what you or I think on the subject. It is your OPINION against FACT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

According to laws passed in many states it does. Do YOU understand that? Again, it does not matter what you or I think on the subject. It is your OPINION against FACT.

Cite in the Second Amendment where such a restriction exists or can be imposed, Speedy.

[Yssup Rider]

Meltdosn continues...

[CJ7]

you guys are much better off ignoring IB, he's used to it in the real world, and functions much better when he obeys all those little voices in his head telling him what to do