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

Thank god.

Posted by Justin | Report as abusive
 

Scrutinizing executive orders and laws passed by Bush’s admin. will be a grand start.

Posted by NParr | Report as abusive
 

Mr. Obama, I must ask you two questions:

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

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? 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.

Posted by kdurham68 | Report as abusive
 

Firstly, Obama was not a law professor, he was a lecturer. Also he fails define the statement “pass muster”. Does he mean quit fighting terrorist? Bush cannot make laws, only the congress. Better be ready to accept marxist ways if Obama becomes our next president. As for the surpreme court, the justices sorta of remind about the old saying us engineers used to say: “An engineer that can’t design becomes a manager, if they can’t manage, they become professors who teach engineering, and if they can’t teach they write books on how to be an engineer”. All judges that I’m aware of are pollitically appointed irregardless of their ability.

Posted by Jack from Kansas | Report as abusive
 

This is one of the most patriotic things I have heard in a while. Check to ensure that all laws are constitutional. Attitudes like this will keep the dream which is America alive.

Posted by Ciceroji | Report as abusive
 

Eight years of Bush and the Clinton’s campaign methods have made this bitter old white guy an Obama voter and contributor.

Posted by ericmiami | Report as abusive
 

I have a feeling we may also see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the fireing of the Attorney Generals, Lies about Iraq, and who condoned torture.

Posted by Brian | Report as abusive
 

As someone who supported Ron Paul, this is a breath of fresh air.

Posted by Scott | Report as abusive
 

It is the answer to Hillary who says that Obama is all about talking but not doing. As we can see he has a clear idea how and what to do.

Posted by vlad | Report as abusive
 

To Jack from Kansas – people have always said things like that about teachers. It is a popular aphorism, but that does not make it true in any sense. Teachers can only contribute so much – the rest has to come from ability within and some modicum of personal drive.
Example – there is no such word as “irregardless”.
Perhaps you should question your teachers and forget about what makes a good or bad engineer.

Posted by Michael Hunt | Report as abusive
 

Jack from Kansas, it’s “Supreme”. And “first”, not “firstly”. Not to mention, did you just write “irregardless”? Really? Yeesh, no wonder you’ve summed-up all things as “quit fighting terrorist”

So I guess you DO need an explanation. Yes, you are somwehat correct: Congress does legislate many, but not all, of the laws. The problem was Bush, upon signing them, would issue signing statements stating he’d ignore and choose to not enforce the law he was signing, which might not be legal. And thus it falls amongst other things legal problems such as his issuance of executive orders (laws that can be unilaterally created by the President under our system) that claimed broad powers that most likely fall outside of his constitutional authority and thus should be scrutinized as Obama said he would.

Posted by Dave | Report as abusive
 

That sounds fantastic. I hope Obama gets elected and follows through on this. The last eight years have been a series of disasters.

Posted by patrick | Report as abusive
 

Since I decided to comment guess I did open myself up to pruning but didn’t know we were going to evaluate grammer and spelling. The expression has nothing to do with down grading teachers but rather as an expression of one’s ability to design. I was an engineer which did not require spelling. That is why we had a dictionary and thesaurus built into our word processor programs. Again I’m proably wrong but I believe it was one of the former presidents that requested line item veto power over bills passed by congress. By the way the word irregardless is real even tho non standard because of the two negatives and the word amongst is old english and mainly used in Britain.

Posted by Jack from Kansas | Report as abusive
 

So help me if the Republicans win this election I will lose my faith in the American people. Especially when this Democratic front runner is likely just what the doctor ordered for a ghastly sick America under George Bush.

Posted by Dual Citizen | Report as abusive
 

Obama’s position as an instructor of constitutional law at University of Chicago has been verified with them. He was part time and did not have tenure as he was not interested in pursuing it full time. The University has said that the term professor is appropriate, that he received very high evaluations from his students and other professors, and that they would have been interested in his becoming full time and tenured.

Judges appointed politically regardless of their abilities? Sounds like a lot of GOP appointees. Obama’s selection of AG will be crucial. That individual will have an enormous job restoring the DoJ and prosecuting the BushCo administrators.

kdurham68 See the comments on signing orders and executive orders. Also do some review on the multiple problems constitutional lawyers from libertarian, conservative and liberal positions have with Bush’s usurping of power to the executive branch. Much of this has been in concert with Cheney who started in Nixon’s administration and learned from the failures then how to do it so Congress did not catch the problem. Plus he had 6 years of rubber stamp GOP and 15 months of stonewalling in the Senate.

Speaking of the Senate. It was specifically designed to operate in a more conservative way than the House, balancing the influence of legislation that was produced quickly so that it would get more consideration. A junior senator is exceptional if they accomplish much of anything in a short period of time their first term. Obama has actually done quite a bit of very solid work in those circumstances.

Certainly none of his laws in the US or Illinois Senates are anything close to Marxist. Nor does the president create laws. What ever programs or laws he proposes must actually go through Congress before he can sign them. No matter how many times conservative rhetoric tries to paint Democrats as socialists and marxists, there simply is no basis for it. I am a former Libertarian. I would have been Republican except that I am not a Christian and was not welcome. The Dems aren’t perfect, they sure aren’t socialists, let alone communists.

Withdrawing from an occupation that started as an illegal invasion has nothing to do with not fighting terrorism. Obama’s plans have everything to do with going after terrorists effectively instead of creating a fiasco astronomically worse than any threat we faced.

 

kdurham68 – you made the following comment:

“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”

Clearly you have proven that you have no understanding of what executive orders are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_o rder_%28United_States%29

Executive Orders are ways that Presidents can get around the legislation passed by Congress. Although EOs have been around forever, Bush has clearly taken advantage of this feature moreso than any of his other predecessors.

And twice in the past EOs have been constitutionally challenged including one under Bill Clinton. So I think any president coming into office in 2012 has every right to comb thru the excessive number of Executive Orders generated by Bush to confirm that Bush was acting in the best interest of this government and NOT the best interests of the Bush Regime and those profiting off of it.

Posted by Herradura | Report as abusive
 

Jack,

Please. There is no viable defense of the use of the word “irregardless” in America. It shows an ignorance and disdain for knowledge inherent to people who launch unreasonable attacks on sound ideas like the one you brought here against the idea of reviewing and repairing abuse of executive privilege carried out by the Bush administration. “Better be ready to accept marxist ways if Obama becomes our next president.” Where did that come from? Is that really your argument for why he shouldn’t be president? Grow up. Be mature. Your comment provides a clear example of exactly why we need Obama to be president. It’s about time we actually placed intelligence and pragmatism at the top of our priority lists when picking a president, instead of evaluating how much in common he has with average Joes, or how ready for war he is. He will be president, IR-regardless of people like you.

Posted by Chuck | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68 – I think he’s referring to executive orders, which are issued outside of the purview of congress.

Posted by zach wilson | Report as abusive
 

To Jack From Kansas,

Barack Obama’s formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor. In fact he was offered tenure-ship more than once which he declined. There is a difference between “Professor” and “professor”; Obama was a “professor” If you need fourther evidence please go to this site:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/wa s_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_l aw.html

Thank You

w

Posted by Wale | Report as abusive
 

To Jack from Kansas and kdurham68:

Just as a point of clarification: the President has the authority to issue what are called “executive orders,” which are referred to by Obama in the quoted text above. Executive orders are mandates (similar to laws passed by congress) to certain administrative agencies (such as the SEC or EPA) that have been created the power not just to execute laws, as that power is granted to the president, but to interpret laws and to pass regulations of their own. For instance the SEC passes regulations necessary to further the goas of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act passed in 1933 and 1934, respectively. Congress rarely amends these underlying statutes, instead the SEC is relied upon to adapt those statutes to ever-changing circumstances at the direction of the president. An unconsitutional executive order would be an order that mandates that the administrative agency pass a regulation in contradiction of an underlying statute since, as you have both implied or stated, law making authority is ultimately vested in Congress.

Posted by Eric | Report as abusive
 

Also to Jack from Kansas–you may also want to take a look at your understanding of history. “Marxism” is much more complicated than your cursory smear and linking Marxist thought to Obama as a way to automatically question his credentials in the mind of “patriotic” Americans is a thoughtless and uninformed cheap shot.

Posted by Megan | Report as abusive
 

To kdurham68:

While eloquently written, your comment shows your ignorance of all things policy, and constitutional law

1) Executive Orders are not legislation and are not up for review by Congress. They are issued from the president and are immediately enacted. Hence the excitement that Obama elicits by saying he will review these order.

2) Quite Simply, what allows him to do this is the power of the executive order. Only a president with this power can overturn the orders of previous presidents.

EVEN A FOOL, WHEN HE KEEPS HIS MOUTH SHUT, APPEARS WISE. Consider leaving your trap closed next time, or perhaps do a little research and educate yourself. Ignorance is not pretty.

Posted by Neil | Report as abusive
 

First, a lecturer and a professor are not that different. It just means he can be fired and also he does not have a publishing requirement. I am for those here that have gone to college you have encountered some very fine Lecturer.

Rupert Mordoch may endorse Barak Obama does that mean fox news will not publish so much propaganda against him?

Posted by jarofsoup | Report as abusive
 

That he feels violates the constitution? Curious phrasing.

Posted by RD | Report as abusive
 

Jack has it EXACTLY pegged. Obama is referring to Bush’s signing statements, which Bush has abused. Just about every bill that comes across his desk gets a little tweak from the little chimp in chief and that’s dangerous. To kdurham68, Obama – as I hope every other legislator – looks at a bill to determine if it’s constitutionality holds up before voting yeah or nay on it. It’s when the bill is passed and Bush decides to add his own touch of evil to it where the process breaks down.

Posted by Mark Billingsley | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68:

Since you appear to know how to use the internet, why don’t you use it to look up the difference between:

“executive orders” (which were issued by Bush’s EXECUTIVE branch and which Obama can unilaterally overturn), and

“laws” which are issued by the legislature.

This is all so overdue — the vast majority of Bush’s executive orders are either entirely unconstitutional or contain unconstitutional “unitary executive” language claiming that the President can refuse to enforce laws.

Bravo, Obama!

Posted by theo | Report as abusive
 

Jack — From anyone not in the know regarding the technical terms like professor or lecturer, he was a law professor. He was in fact offered a tenure position, but declined. So while he was not technically a professor, he taught Constitutional Law at the same level as those who were. But points to you for the attempt to diminish his work.

Posted by Thing | Report as abusive
 

As a responsible president, who presides over all Constitutional Laws, it is the –duty– of the Executive President of these United States to properly review, in order to maintain the laws.

Mr. Obama has the power and responsibility, as a president should do, to view such laws and with the Attorney General appeal the Supreme Court, radify or dissolve said laws which (even remotely) appear or do in fact violate Constitutional Amendments.
This something NO president since Garfield has done.

As an Independent Capitalist, I am amazed and quite impressed.

This man is actually going to be the first genuine presider (hence where the term president comes from) in many years.

We are with you Sir. Godspeed.

Posted by james from new york | Report as abusive
 

Yes, Obama is going to be a breath of fresh air to this country. People that support the GOP candidates such as McCain and Clinton say that he offers nothing but words. That’s because they no longer know how to hope or enact change. They have been playing the game (and gaining profit) from it for so long they don’t want change and hope is something that scares them.
Obama touches the part of our being that seeks to do better. He tells us that it will not be easy and we know that he is not going to lie to us. He says that we have to take responsibility and we look forward to it because we look at our lives today in 2008 and know who got us in this mess. The failed Presidency of Bush and Bill Clinton. Under Bill we lost 46 democratic seats while he was busy getting his jollies in the Oval Office of OUR White House.
We have no fear of a moral embarressment with Obama at the helm. We know that while George Bush was one of the children left behind (apparent in his speaking abilities) that it is also a failed program that will go away under Obama.
Now he is going to throw out the rules that have been enacted that benefit no one but the Washington fat cats who profit from them. Thank God.

Posted by Sam Foster | Report as abusive
 

awesome President Obama!

Posted by SMS | Report as abusive
 

i would like to see him go after government lawbreakers. i will not want to hear about “moving forward” and “healing” until every last one of these traitorous louts is brought to justice. period end of story. no nixon-style slinking away.

Posted by d. jones | Report as abusive
 

nice try, kdurham68, but you are forgetting a few minor details. as a senator of the minority party, which also did not hold the office of the presidency, he cannot single-handedly stop any legislation he deems unacceptable. did you forget that he may have, at some point, voted against legislation that nonetheless became law? did you forget how many laws and interpretations of questionable constitutionality (e.g.- signing statements) the republicans rammed through in their time of consolidated power?
to point #2, this was a response to a question, not a legal brief filing. even if he did declare these laws invalid with a signing statement, he would not be exceeding the authority assumed by our current white house occupant; but as someone knowledgeable about constitutional law (UNlike our current white house occupant) i believe he will work with congress and the court system to return this country to the rule of law (not men) that our founding fathers created.

 

kdurham68

Obama not talking about laws passed by Congress when he was a Senator. He’s talking about reviewing the constitutionality of executive orders written by President George W. Bush. It’s the Attorney General’s to take matters to the judiciary system. So there’s no conflict with the “separation of powers” in what Obama is proposing.

Posted by Jen in FL | Report as abusive
 

This is just another reason why I support this admirable, intelligent man for President! His judgment is unparalleled by Hillary Clinton or John McCain and it should play well with the electorate in the Fall! It is about time we had a President that can understand the Constitution, much less read it!

Posted by Andrew | Report as abusive
 

Responding to kdurham68: Obama is talking about executive orders not legislation.The President can sign executive orders without the consent of Congress. Some of Bush’s Executive Orders have been harmful to our country. It is good to see that Obama will scrutinize what has been illegally done and begin to put this country on a Moral and Legal path again

 

In addition to corrections of grammar and spelling, dear Jack from Kansas, you will be (more importantly) subjected to corrections of fact when you post on the innertubes. Obama was a professor at U of Chicago, which you can easily verify for yourself:

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

Perhaps you would be happier to cling to your version of “truth” since it better comports with the wingnut worldview.

Posted by Java Jeff | Report as abusive
 

To kdurham68: Obama was referring to overturning executive orders, not laws. Laws go through Congress for review; executive orders don’t.

Bush, like many presidents before him, has enacted many policies through executive orders. For example, though Bill Clinton designated more square miles of parks and protected land than any other president before him, he did so using executive orders, and George W. Bush simply reversed these orders soon after he came into office.

 

UC Law School statement: 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.

Posted by Jim | Report as abusive
 

Wow the ignorance of some of the posters here is staggering.

Executive Orders are NOT Acts of Congress! The Executive Branch…the ones who ENFORCE the laws that Congress writes and the Supreme Court interprets…is able to work under certain Executive Orders, which do NOT require Congressional approval!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_o rder_%28United_States%29

 

Is there any chance we can move up the election date? Before we invade Iran?
The President and Attorney General have an obligation under Constitutional law to make sure laws and legislation are Constitutional.
The current twosome claim executive privilege overrides Congress to make law or ignore inconvenient laws.
The Senator serves in a half-and-half split Senate and could do nothing about the Patriot Act, surveilance laws, etc., except vote against them or the budget for them.
A good President takes his or her oath to defend the Constitution seriously.
It is the most important part of the job.
Right on Obama!

Posted by susants | Report as abusive
 

The “professor” story has been questioned before. Here is the answer from FactCheck:

His formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/wa s_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_l aw.html

By the way, I am a teacher. One thing teachers do is CHECK SOURCES and VALIDATE FACTS before throwing them out there. Just saying….

Posted by Linda | Report as abusive
 

Excellent! We will all sleep better when Bush’s draconian laws and executive orders have been lifted/canceled.

Posted by Mary | Report as abusive
 

Obama’s intention to limit his review only to laws and executive orders under the Bush administration seems to me overtly political in the worst sense of the word. He should go back through the Clinton years, at least. Perhaps he should go all the way back to Hoover. With the size of government Obama plans, he will have plenty of staff to accomplish such a review.

Posted by MKS | Report as abusive
 

Those of you who say Bush cannot make laws – yeah, we all thought that until he started doing just that. Try as you might to take issue with Obama, he’s telling you, point blank, that he plans to undertake the long, arduous process of undoing the damage that has been done to this great nation and its’ standing in the world community. You all stood by and allowed BushCo to get away with war crimes and the overreaching of his presidential powers. To sit around now and try to take shots at the man who has a chance to try and undo the work Bush did is laughable. Bush did what you say he didn’t do. Obama is dedicated to bringing us back to what we once were – a great nation. Sadly, we are but a shadow of that thanks to Bush and our own inactivity. Accept that, or get out of the way. We have the votes and McCain is hardly enough of a candidate to stop us.

Posted by David | Report as abusive
 

The University of Chicago Law School Statement Regarding Barack Obama

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

Posted by Terry, IN | Report as abusive
 

To “kdurham68″: did you actually read the article, or just the headline? The article refers to “laws and executive orders”. Executive orders of course did not go through congress and the new President will have authority to overturn them.

Posted by Andrew | Report as abusive
 

Just out of curiosity, if at the same time Obama were to demand that those who have invoked Executive Privilege come forward and tell what they know about a variety of things not just limited to the attorney firings, would that overrule Bush’s invocation of ExPriv? Or is there some silly custom of Presidents not doing that to former Presidents and their administrations?

Posted by Bob Kahan | Report as abusive
 

To kdurham68: Regarding your two questions:

Obama is referring to executive orders and signing statements, which are not subject to legislative review by Congress. In the past, signing statements have almost exclusively been used for the purposes of political or rhetorical explanation. It is really only recently, and especially during the Bush presidency, that Presidents have used these statements as an attempt to alter the interpretation and/or meaning of a law passed by Congress.

Bush has come under fire from numerous Constitutional scholars and agencies for his extensive use of them, especially in his intent to subvert the intent of laws, especially in their application to his office.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has generally ignored the significance of these statements, and their legality is generally considered insignificant. But, they do have an impact on the offices who typically have to enact the laws, especially with the current regime. Many scholars have stated that Bush’s use of signing statements have become, in essense, an attempt to provide line-item vetos or individual protections, both of which have already been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, based on the seperation of powers clauses…

In fact, Sen. Arlen Specter has twice pushed for specific legislation preventing and declaring as non-actionable all such signing statements. Sen. Specter, by the way, is a Republican.

Posted by Dave | Report as abusive
 

Jack from Kansas –
Irregardless is entirely an American concoction, it is not used in England, neither was it ever Old English – it is merely a blending of irrespective and regardless, two words used with similar intent. Usually blended I might add by lesser educated people – the kind who spell grammar incorrectly.

Posted by Pete from England | Report as abusive
 

To kdurham and Jack from Kansas,

Most of the “laws” that Bush passed were done so through signing statements, Administrative Rule or executive order thus unconstitutionally bypassing Congress. I know because a group I’m associated with won a national precedent setting case regarding environmental law and it was one of the first that Bush unconstitutionally overturned by the use of Administrative Order. He issued the order without any regard for procedure as specified by law.

Moreover, he used Administrative Orders by the thousands on similar cases…all done unconstitutionally but requiring years of lawsuits to eventually overturn. His Administrative Rule negating Clinton’s “Roadless Rule” was but one example that was eventually overturned in Federal Court after being challenged at the cost of millions by a wide consortium of plaintiffs. Obama will save millions in lawsuits and years of time by addressing Bush’s illegal use of the Administrative Rule alone.

And this doesn’t even address the 800 plus illegal signing statements and executive orders that bypassed Congress as well. So being a Senator while Bush was bypassing Congress is not a reflection on Obama as implied by kdurham. Such views are a reflection of how too few “citizens” actually understand how the gov. works.

Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

Posted by Craig | Report as abusive
 

President Obama is exactly what we need to undo the damage of the Bush administration.

While is opponent in the primary is staging photo ops in front of a wall of granite, Senator Obama is beginning the hard work of healing a deeply wounded country.

Posted by Eileen | Report as abusive
 

Jack from Kansas – you’re not keeping up. UC released a statement some time ago confirming BO was indeed a professor. If Bush cannot make laws, what are these ‘executive orders’ I keep hearing about?
Also, it was Reagan who got line the item veto, but it was struck down as unconstitutional. Lastly, (???) ‘marxist ways’? That’s a funny.

Posted by literateEngineer | Report as abusive
 

To Jack of Kansas:

Obama was officially given the title of ‘Senior Lecturer’ at University of Chicago Law School. According to the University itself, it states:

“Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. “

Posted by Dave | Report as abusive
 

There is no more important obligation for the President of the United States or any officer of the government than to protect and preserve the Constitution. Strong beleief in this tenet of our governmental structure is one of the key reasons that Ron Paul has garnered such grass roots support. It is not surprising that Obama’s postion on this has also struck a nerve with civic minded voters. Restoration of the damage done to the Constitution by Bush and his neo-con cronies should be the number one priority of the next administration.

Posted by Joe | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68,

There is a difference between laws as passed by congress and executive orders, which Obama promises to review. Executive orders are made by the President and do not require the approval of Congress. Obama would be within his constitutional rights to review and overturn executive orders, being head of the executive branch.

Jack,

Irregardless is not a proper word. It’s a double negative. Check your dictionary.

Posted by NT | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68:

Obama said “executive orders,” not “legislation.” If you’ve been following our story so far (aka, “reality”), you would know that Bush has made unprecedented use of executive orders and signing statements, in keeping with the neo-con notion of the “unitary executive.” Congress doesn’t vote on these acts.

Posted by Master of the Obvious | Report as abusive
 

This is why I have so much faith in this man and his ability to lead and restore our Country.

 

executive orders and the infamous “signing statements”

Posted by Elektrik | Report as abusive
 

To tell you how quality his knowledge of the Constitution is, he has stated that the Bill of Rights creates rights.

 

Ooh, this is embarrassing. We should have civics classes reintroduced to our educational system. Contrary to previous comments, a president can make law. It’s called an Executive Order. The Bush administration has been a persistent study in how to circumvent the system of checks and balances that were designed to ensure that the disasters of the last 8 years did not come to pass. Unfortunately, the aim of the Bush administration was to exclusively strengthen the powers of the Executive branch of government at the expense of the other two co-equal branches (legislative and judicial). Additionally, the Bush administration politicized the Justice Department in its attempt to render moot any legal challenges to its abuses of power and possible violations of the law.

I am sure Senator Obama voted against many of the laws that he intends to review. However, it should be recognized that President Bush was able to run roughshod over everyone as our country was afflicted with post 9/11 paralysis. “9/11″ was the mantra wielded like a billy club by anyone who dared question the Bush administration’s actions during the first few years following the disaster. Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that we may have veritable plethora of laws that were strong-armed upon us that violate our country’s constitutional principles as well as our civil liberties?

Posted by Walt from Indianapolis | Report as abusive
 

Jack, you should make sure you understand the issues before you go calling names (marxist). “Pass muster” is a term of art in constitutional law indicating that the law meets specific legal standards. The president does have executive powers to issue signing statements and executive orders. I have no doubt that Obama’s review would result in several instances of Bush exceeding the executive powers granted by our constitution.

Posted by v | Report as abusive
 

It strikes me as being very interesting that some commnents question Sen. Obamas capability of correcting past constitutional violations made by the current administration. Would you prefer to keep our country in the disastrous mode that we are now in? Losing homes, ridiculous gasoline prices, fighting an illegal war in Iraq,loosing over 4,000 young men in women, being ignored by our representatives, being hated around the world, having a president with a 30% approval rate, no health insurance for the poor, no educational benefits, horrible schools that produce crininals and losers….need I say more? We need to be beating the election doors down to vote for this man. If he just obeys the constitution, we will all be better off. How much more do you want to be tortured. Sen. Obama is for ALL AMERICANS, not just the wealthy. Give him the opportunity to show how much America can be.

Posted by Lynn | Report as abusive
 

Just a point of clarification for those who are still propagating the erroneous notion that Obama was not a professor, but rather a “lecturer.” Obama was a SENIOR lecturer at the Univ. of Chicago Law School for 11 years. The Dean of the law school made a public statement months ago (when Sen. Clinton was attempting to propagate this notion) that senior lecturer is essentially the equivalent of professor but without tenure. So, for all practical purposes, he was a professor. Further, I find it amusing how literal — to the point of absurdity — people will go to split hairs over this issue only to realize that they’re misinformed. It’s not the title that counts, it what he did while he was at the institution. Let it go — the man was the functional equivalent of a professor and I only wish I could have sat in on his lectures instead of suffering the twit who taught my Constitutional Law class.

 

Virginia Cotts: I was planning to reply to Jack from Kansan, but you already did that beautifully; anything I would add would be redundant. As far as I can tell, you missed just one thing which I will address.

Jack from Kansas: “pass muster” – loosely translated, means – passes the moral, ethical, legal standards.

Posted by Jamchinadian | Report as abusive
 

When we talk about experience and judgment… how do you top this man’s vision? The Washywood politicians of old scorn and point fingers at him saying, ‘nah, nah, … he isn’t ready to play with us big boys, because he won’t follow our game’ and they then try to convince everyone that their king is wearing clothes and tell us to join their team to give them the vote.. only to treat us like crap.
Obama has shown evidence of experience, wisdom, leadership and inspiration.

Posted by origood | Report as abusive
 

Great planning by Senator Obama and how fortunate we are to have a candidate who can hopefully start cleaning up some the the damage done over the last 7 and a half years. Thank you to all the knowledgeable posters here for the great info, I either never knew or have forgotten so much of all this important information.

Posted by Karen in San Antonio | Report as abusive
 

To MKS, nice try at sliding in the right wing ‘big government’ slight against the Dems. You better believe I will support a larger govt if it means routing out the criminals who brought us to this extreme state of moral decrepitude. It won’t cost nearly as much as a continued military presence in Iraq, and will likely begin a healing process that will pay for itself 1000 times over.

Posted by 3Gs | Report as abusive
 

I’m thrilled we will have a President who will review the treachery of the Bush Administration! God Save America!

Posted by Richard | Report as abusive
 

…Marxism is much more complicated than than a cursory smear and linking Marxist thought to Obama as a way to automatically question his credentials… is a thoughtless and uninformed cheap shot.
- Posted by Megan

Excellent point. Karl Marx was an influential Eastern European social philosopher of the late 1800′s whose thoughts regarding the creation of a Utopian society were based on circumstances that existed during his time; Czarist Russia, for instance.

After his death many diverse political movements and historical characters have invoked his arcane writings as a way to justify their own often despotic natures.

I have found that people who are ignorant of complicated historical, political, and social issues are often quick to fling “Marxist” as a pejorative for want of intellectual reasoning: as if that somehow settles things in their favor.

Posted by TripleDeuce | Report as abusive
 

Well you will have much to overturn Mr. Obama. First though I hope that you will denounce your affiliation with the Council On Foreign Relations which has called for among other things an end to our constitution as well as the need for “another 9/11″ to further the agenda of the PNAC documents. Please read into them if you do not know of them yet.
As far as unconstitutional laws and executive orders; the very idea of an executive order is unconstitutional. Mr. Clinton has so many signing statements and executive orders it is hard to keep them all straight. Something most people need to understand is it is not a left/right issue, they are both tainted.
Please google all these
NSPD51/HSPD20
Military Commissions Act
John Warner Defense Act
USA Patriot Act I & II
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
–these are just a few of the efforts to dismantle our constitution and institute a dictatorship. It is your duty as an American to not only be educated about the truth but to demand our rights remain secure.
Peace, Love and Respect,
Jen
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and it’s speaker a raving lunatic.” -Dresden James

Kucinich is the true peace candidate and I suggest everyone become familiar with him and his politics. He is what we truly need to bring us out of this nightmare and back into the light.

Posted by JENNIFERSTRUTH | Report as abusive
 

Obama did count as a professor of law according to the University of Chicago School of Law:

he 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

 

First, one must understand the nature of executive orders. Those that are an affront should and will be overturned in a heartbeat.

Concerning legislation, he has every right through his attorney general to mount suit in the courts concerning the constitutionality of any offending legislation–or anything else for that matter as any one of us do; separation of powers notwithstanding.

As for dereliction of duty as a senator, then please cite what laws where passed, and voted in the affirmative by Senator Obama, that need to be judiciously challenged. I’m afraid your questions lack merit, and your implications, if not understanding, of constitutional law are left wanting.

Posted by David Chapman | Report as abusive
 

Ummmmm…hey, Obama…any chance you could keep those wiretap and surveillance laws around for a while?

Just let it be known and ensure that you are using them exclusively to monitor the corporations?

I think they have forgotten that it doesn’t go “Of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations”.

Posted by ibsteve2u | Report as abusive
 

After reading what kdurham68 had to say I was pretty incensed… his ignorance and self-righteousness is overwhelming. I was glad to see the good people here responding to him, explaining the difference between an “executive order” and “legislation” that passes through Congress.

He tries to take Obama to task but doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about, but we see this over and over again with the lunatic fringe.

Thanks to the good folks in this thread, your quick and intelligent response gives me hope.

Posted by John | Report as abusive
 

Never had a doubt that he would get us back to a government for the people, by the people. Bless this man of honor and integrity. Obama, a real American Hero.

Posted by Veleta Clay | Report as abusive
 

So does that mean all of the unconstitutional gun laws Obama supports will go away? How about all the unconstitutional foreign aid that Obama wants to give foreign countries? Oh…and can someone show me where in the constitution is the section that allows the federal government to tax me for the purposes of establishing universal healthcare? Just more lies from more politicians.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive
 

This may take more than 100 days. The place to start is, of course, the repeal of the “Patriot Act.” Probably be a good to also name Russ Feingold as your running mate. Since he decided that no Executive Branch of the U.S. Govt should have this kind of power over our civil liberties. Also, Senator Feingold was bright enough to know instinctively that the Bush Administration (most of all) was not to be trusted after the bait and switch (and stolen) election of 2000.

Posted by Eric Barth | Report as abusive
 

No one has heard of “signing statements”? Bush signed hundreds of them. He made himself above the law, “in time of war”.

Posted by mlk | Report as abusive
 

And Hillary, fired from the Watergate investigation years ago for unethical behavior.
Your choice.

Posted by mlk | Report as abusive
 

What’s there to scrutinize, just about everything is illegal, he knows it, you know it, and everyone should know it. Overturn everything.

Posted by mtrav | Report as abusive
 

This is truly welcome news. This headline alone speaks to a huge reason for voting OBAMA in November. But, of course, I am terribly biased . . . I believe in the Constitution.

Posted by Paul Olson | Report as abusive
 

its funny how we’ve had almost 8 years of fascism and obama says this and all these people are crying “marxist!” fools.

Posted by cole holiday | Report as abusive
 

What’s there to scrutinize, just about everything is illegal, he knows it, you know it, and everyone else should know it. Overturn everything.

Posted by mtrav | Report as abusive
 

Great news from Obama. I hope one of the first things he does is totally dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted by Luke Casalita | Report as abusive
 

In answer to kdurham68′s question regarding where the executive derives his constitutional power. The executive office has the power to overturn or uphold any executive orders from previous administrations. As far as bills passed I would imagine they will likely be challenged in the court system.

Posted by cnorris | Report as abusive
 

Apparently Kdurham68 can’t read (which is not surprising). He said he’d overturn EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Congress doesn’t vote on executive orders. That’s the point of them & that’s why Bush has been getting away with so much. And even if they weren’t EO’s, the Republicans had a majority until 2006. He could have voted against something and it still would have passed.

Posted by Eddie | Report as abusive
 

There are specific rules (laws) layed down by Congress that specify how both executive orders, signing statements and Administrative Rules are issued. Bush ignored these laws in an attempt to legislate rather than execute the law.

For instance, in passing an Administrative Rule one of the Congressional mandates is that Administrative Rules are required to be open to public comment before they become law. On nearly every Administrative Rule that Bush passed, he illegally bypassed public comment because he knew that the rules he proposed wouldn’t pass muster with the public.

Repubs and conservatives railed against Clinton for passing the “Roadless Rule” at the end of his presidency. But anyone familiar with the process would have known that Clinton proposed the Roadless Rule 6 years prior to its implementation. It took 6 years of public comment before it was legally implemented. It garnered over 1 million signatures from citizens in its favor. But with the stroke of a pen and no public comment, Bush illegally did away with it. As mentioned earlier, it was reinstituted by court decree after years of litigation and millions of dollars that proved the illegality of Bush’s attempt to circumvent the process. When you consider having to do this with the thousands of illegal orders/rules/statements, the task would be daunting. Thus the necessity of the next president doing it as proposed by Obama.

If nothing, Cheney/Rumsfeld are bureaucratic geniuses because, after having served under 3 prior presidents, they learned how to circumvent the Constitution. They knew full well that they could use Administrative Rules, executive orders and signing statements illegally by the thousands and that it would take decades of litigation to overturn their mischief. All they’re concerned with is that their twisting of the rules would work for them in the short term until they were out of office.

As Sy Hersh has documented, they and 9 of their neo-con cohorts took over the apparatus of gov. by placing their people in key spots of the bureaucracy. That’s how they controlled the intelligence that justified an unjustifiable war.

Posted by Craig | Report as abusive
 

Most Americans do not know that laws can passed and be enforced but not constitutional until someone challenges them before the Supreme Court we really never know unless they are blantant disregards for the Constitution it’s self. Which I believe some og Bush’s were. Remember he said it the Constitution is just paper.

Posted by James Wilson | Report as abusive
 

Most Americans do not know that laws can passed and be enforced but not constitutional until someone challenges them before the Supreme Court we really never know unless they are blantant disregards for the Constitution it’s self. Which I believe some og Bush\’s were. Remember he said it the Constitution is just paper.

Posted by James Wilson | Report as abusive
 

Hip hip hurrah! OUr constitution has been consistently raped by Bush and Gang and I can’t think of a better way to start to regain our foothold on our forefather’s plan for our democratic republic. Go for it, Obama. A feminist and veteran for Sen.Obama for President

Posted by J. Teresa | Report as abusive
 

kdurham68:

The presidents oath of office requires him to faithfully uphold the constitution. If a law, even if passed by congress, is unconstitutional, it is illegal. And it is the DUTY of the president to overturn it. If the Supreme Court agrees with Congress that the law IS constitutional they can overrule the president.

There are three EQUAL branches of government. But they ALL are charged with upholding the constitution.

Posted by Lew | Report as abusive
 

It’s gonna come down to the old fogies in Florida. He doesnt have a shot at them

Posted by marknyc | Report as abusive
 

Some of you need to do your research and stop listening to Limbaugh and crew before you get on here slandering Senator Obama. He was IN FACT a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be “a professor.”

UC Law School statement: 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 kdurham68 (I have an answer for you. It sounds like you are new to policymaking process)

Mr. Obama, I must ask you two questions:

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

ANSWER: The laws that are passed by the US Senate are laws that can be over ridden by the house and senate. The President however has executive privilege to make laws that if not contested by the majority in the House and Senate can stay in the books until the majority of the House and Senate (2/3) reject it or until the next President get into Office. If you feel there are laws that were passed and are unconstitutional, I suggest you frame it clearly so I can look at it and address them.

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? 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.

ANSWER: I am personally subjected to the US Constitution as were our founding fathers: Adam, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc… and will not make myself above the law. I will try to address overturn however if only the majority of the House and Senate are in Favor. I will not impose my views on anyone but will fight to persuade for what is common sense right with no strings attached lawmakers to work in a bipartisan fashion to at least address it on the floor and win the majority. My motto in the run to the Presidency is “engaging in a different kind of politics” that is for you and the many Americans alike.

Posted by Daniel | Report as abusive
 

Can we put impeachment back on the table?

Supplemental question: is it still “impeachment” to prosecute an ex-president after he has left office for crimes committed while he was in office?

Posted by Nicholas Hunter | Report as abusive
 

Kdurham68 sounds like a pundit on fox news who knows how to word things intelligently but relies on the ignorance of those watching to believe they are valid questions and/or statements. Obviously, executive orders can be reversed, and any other Bush legislation that has been passed can be overturned by Obama suggesting new policy directions that a freshly democratic congress would be glad to follow through with new legislation to stamp out the old policies. Remember Bush giving all those speeches at the beginning of his first term that influenced the country to accept borderline marshall law in order to “protect us”? Imagine President Obama doing that in the opposite direction. Easy, considering we’re all starting to feel the nasty side-effects of allowing all that unconstitutional crap to happen. As senator, Obama did not have the same influence on passing legislation that the president had. Senators have one vote. The president can veto. As president, I trust Obama can reverse this horrible trend of eroding our constitutional democracy via Bush Doctrine. The only roadblock would be our hyper-conservative judiciary branch (once again thanks to Bush), which would probably be overriden by a 2/3 congressional majority vote. Say goodbye to the Bush years, cause it’s time for the REAL 21st century to begin.

Posted by Johan | Report as abusive
 

For the first time in 8 years I have hope.

Posted by kerry | Report as abusive
 

It is clear from looking over the comments that many people are not aware of the laws or executive decisions issued by George Bush without the benefit of congressional approval. Barak Obama will review and overturn those that violate the constitution.

Posted by Mary | Report as abusive
 

You people need to learn a little about the law. Obama said he is going to review EXECUTIVE ORDERS, not legislation. Executive orders come from the President and do not go through Congress.

Posted by Bob | Report as abusive
 

Geeez guys/gals!!! He is just saying that he will question and/or change G W Bush’s many “signing statements”.

Posted by Torbin | Report as abusive
 

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
 

Sorry but I guess I’m just a bitter gun and bible person. Face it, Obama is a terrorist. He hates America and isn’t fit to lead his party off a cliff. Mccain is the only chance we have at remaining a free country. Obama only wants to take away our rights. Mccain has character and accomplishments. Obama has a speech. Just look at the people he associates with. Would you allow these people to be around your family and children? If Obama wins….I’m going to Canada or Mexico. If Mccain wins I’ll still be free!!!!!

Posted by Jared | Report as abusive
 

George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Posted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang | Report as abusive
 

ACORN volunteers and voter fraud

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

Ohio Homeless Driven to Polls to Vote Obama
CLEVELAND — Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.

The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state’s elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn’t have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.

Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

Early today, Stadlin’s van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.

“I never voted before,” Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. “Without this service, I would have had no way to get here.”

Please read Stanley Kurtz’ article called “Inside Obama’s Acorn” and tell us again how wonderful he will be for our country

 

So, I bet everything I have (and let me tell you it’s a LOT) that HE WILL NEVER get rid of these executive orders of BUSH all ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL but he will NEVER give up the power Bush just gave him – it’s disgusting.

Posted by BZ in NH | Report as abusive
 

That isn’t the job of the president. That is the job of the judicial branch.

That said, what does Obama care about the Constitution since he said himself he will appoint judges who will “move us from the essential constraints the Founders wrote into the into the Constitution. IOW, he thinks that the Constitution is a “living document” open to different interpretations as time progresses.

That sort of thinking is more dangerous than anything Bush may have done.

Posted by Aedd | Report as abusive
 

I am interested in knowing what President Obamas thoughts are on the laws that state that a person convicted of second degree murder ,which was proven self defensethat Tennessee doesn’t reconize,has to do 85% of whatever the time is that the judge gives.There was a trial that I was at by chance and even you ,Mr. President would not have liked.Something should be done about this,because,some do not deserve this.I had heard that this was going to be done away with and a new law to replace it.Our prisons are so full now that prisoners that need to be kept behind bars are being released to hurt others.Thank you for your time and I would love to hear everyones response ,especialy the President. Thank You.

Posted by Martha Paris | 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/