Tales from the Trail

Bush’s laws will be scrutinized if I become president, Obama says

May 28, 2008

rtx69fr.jpgDENVER – Maybe it’s his background teaching constitutional law.

If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.

Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.

During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama

Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage

Photo credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking (Obama talks to students during a visit to a school in Thornton, CO) 

Comments
156 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

To those who are saying Obama as president does not have the right to overturn what Congress has voted on clearly has not paid attention to what Bush has done his entire 8 years in office. He continually vetoes legislation that even HIS supporters rally for and has made history by unconstitutionally increasing the powers of the executive branch. The legislative branch was created by our founding fathers to keep the executive branch in line. They realized that an egomaniacle president (sort of like an English king) will ignore the will of the people unless the people are represented. All Obama is saying he will do is attempt to reverse the perversion Bush has injected into the White House.

Posted by MSanchez | Report as abusive
 

YES ! A President who understands and respects the Constitution !

Posted by Chuck | Report as abusive
 

I think it would be very special if our politicians were rated on what they have accomplished, or at least made efforts to accomplish, rather than what they promise they are “going to do” in the future.

For instance, so many promises to “bring the troops home”. Yet little to no efforts to do so since Demos won the majority of both houses of congress almost two years ago.

Pelosi, for instance, continues to pretend she’s unaware that there is no need for her and her fellow dems to have 60, or 67 votes, in order to pass a law to bring the troops home. Hello? Nancy, darling, just don’t submit a funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal. If the chimp refuses to sign it, so be it; there will be no more money for “his” war. (Or could it be it’s “their” war, as well?

If candidates quit making promises, think of the advertising dollars which could be diverted into useful programs, etc.

 

YES! Please, please let this intelligent, well-read and respectful man win.
PLEASE

Posted by court | Report as abusive
 

I hope what is reported here is true and that Obama will revue and rescind Bush’s executive orders and seek to have all his unconstitutional laws overturned, but I still wonder why this “Constitutional scholar” said that he “sees no reason to impeach Bush” and I wonder if he still believes that.

Posted by B York | Report as abusive
 

I hope that this will also include an impeachment request if there is evidence to support lies and deliberate deception to lead us into an aggressive, first strike war.

Posted by greg | Report as abusive
 

THANK YOU OBAMA…I knew there was a reason you had my vote and this is it. I’ve been waiting for a candidate to say this since 2000.

You not only have my vote but my support until the end of time!

Posted by Donnat | Report as abusive
 

After reading all the comments here, I can only add this;
If you vote for McCain and you make under $200k a year, you are dumber than a rock.

Posted by Christi California | Report as abusive
 

You know I would think this would please conservatives. I’ve been wondering how they would take to a democratic president behaving like Bush– adding signing statements to all of the bills he signs (saying he doesn’t have to abide by the law),claiming expansion of executive powers, etc. etc. etc. How lucky we are to have a candidate running for office who teaches constitutional law.

Posted by melissa | Report as abusive
 

Be patient, any actions now are a waste of time. Don’t forget who’s attorney general. The time will come.

Posted by Joe Bush | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68,
Executive orders are directives from the President. They are not subject to the approval of Congress, nor are they well defined by the Constitution.

Posted by za | Report as abusive
 

To Jack from Kansas, Line Item Vetos are unconstitutional. Please see Clinton v. City of New York for information on the matter.

Posted by JacJac | Report as abusive
 

Finally! This is what i’ve been waiting for a canidate to say!

Posted by Gary B | Report as abusive
 

To JACK from Kansas: Barack Obama has two honorary Doctorate of Law degrees from Howard & Wesleyan.
The following statement by the the University of Chicago confirms that he was indeed a professor:
“The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

Posted by dr mad | Report as abusive
 

There is hope for America. His name is Obama! We have an opportunity to open up a new page in the progress of America.
The promise of a President who will preside over the lawful progress of his administration is long overdue. It is a novelty too. A President who puts the Constitution of the United States in the forefront of his mission has been unheard of. The lust for power has been evident for the past seven and a half years. Power to push, bully, embarrass, deprive and neglect has been the ever ready weapon of this administration. This has to come to an end, and this man has proposed the only way to undo the damage of an administration of arrogance.
This country was founded on the premise that law should be the prime concern of our government, especially the laws that are the foundation of our body politic. I say, if you have to get behind someone, get behind someone who has an idea as to where to start making a change. Anyone who has been looking for how change will come, have now had a brief glance of the hope of America.
As to those who have the republican slant which includes slight of mouth trickery and diversion philosophy, I say, you already have had a glance of your ideals and they have led to the devolution of a nation. Somewhere in there you must find a reason for pride. However, pride in destruction is a sad approach to rule.

Posted by Uncledaddy | Report as abusive
 

We need to fight terrorism, but we need to have some common sense in doing so. I think Bush has gone a bit too far with the patriot act, but this was approved by Congress too, so they are at fault. I also think the Democrats go to far the other way. Not checking bags and not tapping phones where appropriate is just dumb.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some change. I think McCain is the same old thing so I doubt I’ll vote for him. But I’m a bit leary of Obama too. I’m afraid he will become the next Jimmy Carter of American politics and that is not a good thing.

Obama is a bit to socialist for me. I want less government, not more. Obama will have the government get more involved in the environment, health care and other areas and I’m sure that will not help.

Can we get a decent third party in this country?

Posted by Enzo | Report as abusive
 

“I must ask you to please identify precisely what power granted by the Constitution to the office of the Presidency allows such a unilateral action on your behalf? Do you believe that you are not personally subject to the US Constitution? The Separation of Powers given by that historic and monumental document does not allow the President to subsume the functions of the courts and the judiciary.”

kdurham68, I must ask you: Why haven’t you posed these questions where they should be posed, to Bush? Your questions are important and need answers. Address them to the relevant target.

 

I think its funny there are about 30 comments correcting kdurham68. It just goes to show the power wielded by First Post.

Posted by Casey | Report as abusive
 

Wow, lot of stupid people here. Obama’s a Harvard lawyer, he knows the law. What he’s saying is that he would work on getting rid of laws that he believes are unconstitutional. This doesn’t mean he’ll try to bypass Congress.

Calling him a marxist? Wow…idiocy.

Posted by Edward | Report as abusive
 

profoundly necessary to end the signing statements and executive orders, though, ironically, this is exactly what W. did when he took the office.

Posted by eli | Report as abusive
 

To kdurham68 and Jack and everyone else who are countering Obama’s statement:

There are two ways of winning in this world: 1) Do something better than everyone else or 2) Bring everyone down to make only you look good. You guys tend to be category number 2.

I don’t care if it was Obama or McCain or some dog in an astronaut suit that wants to do this, scrutinizing Bush’s orders is a good thing to do, and all you’re doing is saying “Oh sorry, you’re not qualified.”

You guys missed the point, and missed your purpose in life.

Oh, and sorry, you’re not qualified.

Posted by jnon | Report as abusive
 

I don’t know whats wrong with me, I don’t have a political bone in my entire body, BUT! This woman makes my skin crawl!
She believes that she has the poor-ignorant-white-vote tied up!

Now, tell me, are you one of her supporters?

 

Executive orders can be overturned. Congress can repeal laws and the way things are going, the five Republican senators and 50 congressmen will have trouble passing laws praising cats and dogs.

 

George Bush can’t even spell constitution. I think his executive orders, such as:
May 1 Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma
Apr. 18 Executive Order: Amending Executive Orders 13389 and 13390
Feb. 29 Executive Order: President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board
Feb. 15 Executive Order: Providing An Order of Succession Within the Department of Health and Human Services
Feb. 13 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection with the National Emergency with Respect to Syria
Feb. 7 Executive Order: Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs
Feb. 5 Executive Order: Implementation of the Protocol Additional to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America
Jan. 29 Executive Order: Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks
Jan. 23 Executive Order: Further Amendment of Executive Order 11858 Concerning Foreign Investment in the United States
Jan. 22 Executive Order: Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy
Jan. 4 Executive Order: Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay
Dec. 6 Executive Order: Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Monday, December 24, 2007
Nov. 28 Executive Order: Establishing An Emergency Board to Investigate Disputes Between the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Certain of Its Employees Represented by Certain Labor Organizations
Nov. 19 Executive Order: President Bush Designates The ITER International Fusion Energy Organization As a Public International Organization
Nov. 13 Executive Order: Improving Government Program Performance
Oct. 20 Executive Order: Protection of Striped Bass and Red Drum Fish Populations
Oct. 19 Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma
Sept. 28 Executive Order: Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees and Amendments to and Revocation of Other Executive Orders
Sept. 28 Executive Order: Further 2007 Amendments to the Manual for Courts Martial, United States
Sept. 27 Executive Order: Strengthening Adult Education
Sept. 12 Executive Order: Extending Privileges and Immunities to the African Union Mission to the United States
Aug. 17 Executive Order: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation
Aug. 13 Executive Order: Amending the Order of Succession in the Department of Homeland Security
Aug. 2 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions
Jul. 20 Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency
Jul. 18 Executive Order: Establishing An Interagency Working Group on Import Safety
Jul. 17 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
Jun. 29 Executive Order: Further Amending Executive Order 13381, as Amended, to Extend Its Duration by One Year
Jun. 29 Executive Order: Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 with Respect to Turkmenistan
Jun. 20 Executive Order: Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways
May 17 Executive Order: National Security Professional Development
May 16 Executive Order: Protecting American Taxpayers From Payment of Contingency Fees
May 14 Fact Sheet: Twenty in Ten: Strengthening Energy Security and Addressing Climate Change
May 14 Executive Order: Cooperation Among Agencies in Protecting the Environment with Respect to Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Vehicles, and Nonroad Engines
May 9 Executive Order: Establishment of Temporary Organization to Facilitate United States Government Assistance for Transition in Iraq
Apr. 18 Executive Order: 2007 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States
Apr. 4 Executive Order: Establishing An Emergency Board to Investigate a Dispute Between Metro-North Railroad and Its Maintenance of Way Employees Represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Apr. 2 Executive Order: Renaming a National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Mar. 7 Executive Order: Extending Privileges and Immunities to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations
Mar. 6 Executive Order: Establishing a Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors and a Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes
Feb. 14 Executive Order Trial of Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military Commission
Jan. 26 Executive Order: Further Amendment to Executive Order 13285, Relating to the President’s Council on Service and Civic Participation
Jan. 24 Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
Jan. 18 Executive Order: Further Amendment to Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review

———END 2007———————————–

Lest we forget, Executive Order 9006 by FDR authorized the “relocation” (internment) of American citizens of Japanese descent.

Posted by RJ Kruger | Report as abusive
 

Thank God, Buddha, Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Frogs and Princes!

We have someone who wants to be in the Whitehouse who isn’t also interested in being an unjust tyrant and war-profiteer.

It’s been a loooooong time comin’!

Don
GandhiGuy.com

 

Why does Hussein Obama hate this country?

Posted by Bill Stein | Report as abusive
 

If Mr. Obama intends to seriously examine the constitutionality of the actions of previous administrations, he’d better start with Woodrow Wilson.

Posted by Some Guy | Report as abusive
 

Thank God! I noticed Hillary or McCain have not signed the restore the constitution pledge. Obama can clear out all the BS signing statements and executive orders which torture, renditions, breaking the laws intent and other important constitutional crises.

Posted by KQuark | Report as abusive
 

I couldn’t even get past the first two comments without shaking my head in wonderment at how poorly educated and informed people seem to be about what has been done to them during the past 7-1/2 years. First of all, to kdurham68, Senator Obama is talking about executive orders, which we can call laws because they have that effect. Many of the executive orders that have been issued by Bush are frighteningly Orwellian in their strictures. Furthermore, members of the Senate and/or the House have no control whatsoever over whether or not an executive order is issued, and whether or not its intents are carried out. I would suggest that you read these executive orders, which can be accessed on the White House website.

And to Jack from Kansas. First of all, Senator Obama was indeed a professor, an associate professor, but a professor nonetheless and not merely a lecturer. Some fact-checking on your part might have been helpful. And I hope you read what I wrote to kdurham68 above. Those executive orders have the effect of laws and many of them are unconstitutional at their very core.

I’m sure that as I read through more of these comments, I will feel like tearing out my hair. We must have an educated and informed electorate if we are ever going to get this country back on the right track, the one that allows us to resurrect our Constitution, improve our domestic situation, and elevate our standing in the world community. Let’s get to it.

Posted by Mum | Report as abusive
 

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index. html

 

What a breath of fresh air to hear more specifics on Obama’s plans for change in this country.

Of course, its too often pearls before swine. The above article (which likely to go unread by those who most need to read it) is a tidy answer to the masses of the ignorant and uninformed, who love to ask and mass-email the questions: “CHANGE? What’s he gonna change? He’s all talk and no action!”

Obama seeks to restore the integrity of the Constitution, the protection of which would not only be his sworn duty as President, but sorely needed in the wake of past 7 years, as Executive Order has been exploited, for ill means, to undermine both the spirit and the letter of Constitutional Law.

Posted by Laura from SC | Report as abusive
 

Jnon-

Are you kidding with this?

There are two ways of winning in this world: 1) Do something better than everyone else or 2) Bring everyone down to make only you look good. You guys tend to be category number 2.

I don’t care if it was Obama or McCain or some dog in an astronaut suit that wants to do this, scrutinizing Bush’s orders is a good thing to do, and all you’re doing is saying “Oh sorry, you’re not qualified.”

You guys missed the point, and missed your purpose in life.

Oh, and sorry, you’re not qualified.

By broadly accusing Obama’s critics of bringing people down to make themselves feel better – simply because they are his critics – do you not realize that’s exactly what you’re doing?

Like pretty much every other lib on here, you spend a fraction of your time on actual issues and go right for the throat with personal insults of anyone with whom you do not agree. For the party that claims to be the “champions of free speech,” you sure don’t want to hear opinions that aren’t identical to yours.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive
 

“1) As you are and have been a member of the United States Senate for the last four years, I would have expected you would have evaluated any legislation during that time period to insure you were helping to pass only laws which are constitutional.”

Fair enough.

“Do you, therefore, only intend to review laws from before you were a member of the Senate for Constitutionality or are those laws enacted since you took office also planned for review? If the former, please explain why you failed to take the time while you were in the Senate to review what your predecessors had done.”

That’s a rediculous standard. No Senator — especially one running for President — has the time to review all circumspect laws passed before they came into office. What, he’s supposed to not only review the laws he’s involved in but those that came before… not that as a Senator he’d be able to do anything about them right now, but just IN CASE a chance ever comes along… oh, and also he’d have to run for President in order to get in that position to change it.

Riiiiight. Yeah, he “failed” alright. Failed to work himself into the grave.

“If the latter, please explain why you were lax in carrying out your duties as a US Senator?”

What, you mean like on bills he voted against but were passed into law anyway? Or executive orders he had no involvement in? I guess maybe, if he’d carried around a club and intimidated everyone into doing what he felt was right he would have fulfilled his duties to adequate conclusion?

“2) Since you have indicated it is your intention, if elected, to meet with your Attorney General to review existing legislation and overturn that which you consider unconstitutional, I must ask you to please identify precisely what power granted by the Constitution to the office of the Presidency allows such a unilateral action on your behalf?”

He can overturn executive orders deemed unconstitutional.

“Do you believe that you are not personally subject to the US Constitution? The Separation of Powers given by that historic and monumental document does not allow the President to subsume the functions of the courts and the judiciary.”

Right — like he literally meant he was going to go over the heads of the Supreme Court. Come ON.

Posted by Brandon Butler | Report as abusive
 

Nice to see Reuters editing out my posts that really drive home any points from the right. Way to keep up your reputation as an unbiased news organization. What’s your standard? 20:1 ratio of lib posts to conservative? Pathetic.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive
 

I will vote for Obama , and , he better undue all Bush has set in place , or , he can forget about a second term .

Posted by Barbara bergstrom | Report as abusive
 

A lot of people forget or overlook Obama’s oft-stated belief in Our Constitution and our personal freedom. He’s an expert on our Constitution and has pledged to follow it to the letter. We will regain our freedoms yet finish off the terrorists who reside on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We refuse to surrender our freedom to Bin Laden.

Posted by Joe Blow | Report as abusive
 

I have been A-political my entire life. Politics has always been a zero-sum game that I never wanted any part of. This may sound odd coming from a law “professor” but the wisest man I know (my father) told me there is no place in law for politics – at least not in the American sense of the word. Not until Obama have I believed in any Presidential candidate. I believe in him, I believe he will do what’s right – not politically correct and I believe he can turn our great country around and start the healing America so needs. I just sincerely hope he doesn’t disappoint!

Posted by Jim | Report as abusive
 

Obama has touched the hearts and minds of all those frustrated US citizens who have witnessed the moral rape of their country by an unprincipled business magnate.

Let the healing begin – and help Obama to exsponge the tainted, painful scars made by a US president who will go down in US history as the worst ever.

Posted by The Truth Is... | Report as abusive
 

Don’t get too excited about Obama just yet. After all he did vote FOR Patriot Act II. There’s no reason to believe ANYTHING that Obama says.

Posted by dboy | Report as abusive
 

This debate could be instructive. Posters seem rational and friendly. This statement by Obama is reassuring but obvious. Obama has been endorsed by many constitutional authorities. He knows executive powers.
The President has certain powers delegated by the Constition or ceded to him over the years by custom or inattention of Congress and the courts. Notice that Constitution refers to the P. as “he.” Shall we ignore that? Executive Orders limit members of the Executive Branch only, not citizens or Congress. If an officer violates the Constitution or any law and refers to an XO as authority, any federal court can throw out the order. The President has enormous powers. Lincoln started the Civil War and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. FDR ended wage discrimination by race in the WPA. Truman end apartheit in the military. A secret FDR XO set up a special court to try the Nazi sabateurs. They were killed (except for one who ratted.) It may have been Constitutional under C-in-C powers. He ordered American warships to shoot submarines on site beforee 12/7/41.
Signing statements only limit Executive Branch behavior. Any officer who violates any of them countermands the President. Not conducive to a long career. Any President can cancel any XO or Signing Statement with a stroke of the pen. To be legal, the XO must be within the power of the President. There are also Regulations issued by Executive agencies under the legislative authority granted on agency establishment or amendment. The President can try to change these directly, but any court will treat that as a misuse of executive power. The thwarted President must then order the agency to go through the procedure specified in legislation — usually an open comment period, but Congress has a legislative veto. Obama knows all this stuff, and will not make the absurd blunders W has made. Obama’s advisors are exammining laws and XOs and making lists of orders to be changed or issued. It will be long. I just hope its long enough to fix the orders that need fixing.

Posted by nihil | Report as abusive
 

I don’t think anyone need worry about what Obama might or might not do if elected to be the President of this country. I do not think the majority of the population (White, working-class, non-college educated, family incomes under $100,000)are so obtuse that they, unlike the media and the so-called liberals will be conned into voting for a Black man with two years in the US Senate, no military service, and a strange assortment of America-haters like Ayers and Wright over John McCain. Time to stop pretending that race doesn’t matter. Poll after polls have shown that even Hillary Clinton is the more electable of the two Democrats, and that Obama will be easily defeated by McCain. With their selection of Obama as the Democratic nominee, they are most likely to snatch “defeat from the jaws of victory”. Will be interesting to see if the claim that whomever wins West Virgina wins the Presidency. OH NO!!! That was a Hillary Clinton win. Guess McCain will win WVA in the general election.

Posted by barb | Report as abusive
 

It’s about time that anyone even recognizes the fact publicly that Bush did sign all those executive orders! I hope that this isn’t just campaign rhetoric. Someone needs to at least try to undo all the damage done by Bush. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, there is no constitution. Anyone that has the nerve to sign an order giving himself the right to take over all three branches of government has shown that he has no respect for the law of the land. The founding fathers were trying to prevent that exact thing from happening when they established a system of checks and balances. But that system has a weakness…unscrupulous politicians and dictators!!

Posted by D. Sullivan | Report as abusive
 

Wow… did it take me a long time to read through all of these posts… I have a few things that I would like to add.
First… for those of you who say that Obama has no record, I direct you to this site. This woman has done a marvelous job in researching the two democratic candidates work in the US Senate: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/ 201332/807

Executive orders and legislation have been fully explained as the terminology of being a professor or not. Though it is refreshing to find a candidate that so boldly states that we’ve been duped for the last 8 years and probably further back than that.

Second… Those of us that support Obama must do our best to ensure that the Swiftboating tactics don’t work this time.. and they will be out in force. He is a man of strong beliefs and ethics and, IMO.. to keep bringing up his church, which he has now left… (some will say for political expediency.. but I truly believe that it was a heart wrenching decision for him and his family. I still get people coming to me saying that he is muslim..that he sat in a Black Liberation Theology Christian Church for 20 years…. fear tactics) I believe that we have a more informed electorate this year… I believe that we are smarter than the Rovian tacticians take us for…

Regarding the voting for funding of the Iraq war… Obama put it pretty simply… once you have driven the bus over the cliff, you can’t do much less. To vote to stop funding the war would not have brought our troops home.. it would have just given them nothing to fight with but stone knives and bearskins.. and, unlike McCain.. he holds our military service men and women in the highest regard.

Education… Obama is the only candidate that I have heard who supports a broad education for our children and who recognizes the important role that teachers and parents play in our children’s future. He wants to level the playing field and put more emphasis on overall education rather than teaching to the tests… He states that we, as parents, are also responsible for the education of our children…. Unfortunately, we have a generation of Bush/Clinton years that are now raising our kids…. and the College/University kids now see that there was a lot wrong with that.. so, I guess we didn’t do too badly, but we let a lot of people down….

Foreign Policy… I find it absurd that Obama is chided by McCain about visiting Iraq.. and that he has not spoken to General P face to face… even though he is running for President, as a junior senator, it is not his place to jump the Chain of Command and go talk to the Commander in Iraq face to face… the military is not to be used as a political tool… the military serves and protects the constitution of the USA and they are under the POTUS…. for Obama to talk to General P directly would undermine good order and discipline. In regards to talking to our “enemies” without preconditions… I find it absurd that it has been spun into inviting someone to tea… Let me make it clear what I think preconditions means… A precondition is something that must be achieved before you even consider talking to somebody. I.E. My neighbor has a dog that howls all night.. and until he kills or gets rid of that dog, I am not gonna talk to him about his dog that howls all night… Precondition is different than condition…. I.E I have a problem with your dog because it howls all night.. can we talk about it? Does it need better dog food? More attention? Let’s see what we can do in order for me to sleep at night.

I digress, and I am sorry… I feel very strongly about Barack Obama..like many of you, this is the first time that I have been energized by a candidate since I was 18 years old and campaigning for George McGovern… I am a half Japanese/Caucasian and I am a 52 year old woman..Barack Obama has brought me back to that time I was 18…. He is a once in a lifetime candidate who deserves all of our support as he unites our fractured nation…. Thanks for listening to my rants.. I will step off my soapbox now…

Posted by Show Me | Report as abusive
 

This claim of Obama’s is pure rhetoric. It is non-specific like most of the things he ‘stands’ for. It’s lack of specificity illustrates that he has either 1) not reviewed the orders (which are clearly visible to him should he make an effort to see them) many of which are clearly unconstitutional even to a layman; or 2) He has no intention of revealing anything about what his stance is on them.

Barack,

With all due respect, stop pussyfooting around and take a stance on something specific. The information is out there for you to see.

One thing I have to say is he’s a great politician. Do we want another great POLITICIAN or a STATESMAN which he clearly is NOT! A statesman would already know the contents of those orders and already have a stance on at least some of them they could talk intelligently about.

Posted by Juan Fidalgo | Report as abusive
 

Signing statements are just the president admitting in the public record that he intends to violate his oath of office, the Constitution, and the law just passed. If that’s not grounds for impeachment, I don’t know what is.

Posted by Johnny E | Report as abusive
 

We can overturn the unconstitutional laws, that would be great — and we’ll still need to put him on trial for war crimes. We were tired of waiting for reality, so we went ahead and prosecuted — you can watch at funwithwarcrimesDOTcom

 

After the election the Democrats will do nothing about accountability for the Cheney/Bush WMD lies that got 4,082 US Soldier killed and over 30,000 maimed. To say nothing of the Iraqi dead.

The Democrats will investigate and possibly impeach Cheney and or Bush before the election or this opportunity for America to repudiate everything that this insane, evil pair stand for will be gone forever.

The time to find out if US House Democrats will honor their oath of office is now, before the election. Ask yourselves the question.

If they will not honor their oath to protect our Constitution, are they fit to be in office? Is lying about their oath to protect our Constitution something you as a voter approve of?

If they didn’t take their oath seriously, is there anything else they are fudging on? Like real single payer healthcare? If they don’t intend to honor their oath, are they actually in favor of subverting our Constitution?

This is the acid test all Democrats can use to evaluate whether the current House Democrats are fit to be in office.

We Democrats should be challenging all Democratic candidates for re-election to the US House of Representatives regarding holding impeachment hearings and do it every time they appear in public until the election, Unless you as a voter approve of Cheney and Bush getting 4,082 of our citizens killed for their WMD lies.

John H Kennedy, Denver CO, USA,
43 yr Democratic voter and Obama delegate

,,

Posted by John H Kennedy Denver CO | Report as abusive
 

And I submit to Mr. Obama the recommendation of current Asst. U. S. Attorney General, Patrick Fitzgerald, as his choice for Attorney General. That selection alone would send certain members of Congress and this current administration into seizures.

 

I think the American people need to get this jurk out of office NOW. He has don nothing but screw America and its people.I also think Obama and McCain are just not what we need they Talk the Talk but I don’t see them Walking the Walk T still think we are in for more of the Political Bull

Posted by Tom | Report as abusive
 

My God,……..i don’t think I’ve ever read more bitter comments from more bitter people in my life,…..

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/