Obama's First 100 Days: A Good Start

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
This is refreshing:

DENVER - 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
Click to expand...


http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/20...scrutinized-if-i-become-president-obama-says/
 
Um.. He was a Senior Lecturer, not a professor. According to the university itself Obama was not a professor.
 
Although I do agree with this. It is one of the things I would do, regardless of who was President.
 
Damocles said:
Um.. He was a speaker, not a professor. According to the university itself Obama was not a professor.
Click to expand...


If you're going to do off topic irrelevant minutae at least get your fucking facts straight and quit parroting right-wing nutter tripe that has been thoroughly debunked.

Christ on crutches you're tiresome!:

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
 
Dungheap said:
If you're going to do off topic irrelevant minutae at least get your fucking facts straight and quit parroting right-wing nutter tripe that has been thoroughly debunked.

Christ on crutches you're tiresome!:



http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Click to expand...
Works for me.

I can live with that.

As I said, I agree with the intent. Regardless of party, one of the first things I would do is do what he is suggesting. There are many I believe to be out of line, or simply wrong to begin with regardless of constitutionality.
 
I think even better would be to have the AG put together a panel of this nations BEST Constitutional law scholars from seveal different Law Schools and firms. Don't worry about their political pursuasion and have them review them. My fear is that if he puts JUST his AG on this it will be more political than anything. I don't want this to LOOK like a Bush bashing. What I want is for people who know the Constitution to do the right thing regardless of politics. If not then all we will hear from a small but vocal group of neocons is how this is a politically motivated hit job on the Bush administration at the expence of national security. Any review of Bush Exec Orders and laws signed by him MUST be above reproach.
 
Socrtease said:
I think even better would be to have the AG put together a panel of this nations BEST Constitutional law scholars from seveal different Law Schools and firms. Don't worry about their political pursuasion and have them review them. My fear is that if he puts JUST his AG on this it will be more political than anything. I don't want this to LOOK like a Bush bashing. What I want is for people who know the Constitution to do the right thing regardless of politics. If not then all we will hear from a small but vocal group of neocons is how this is a politically motivated hit job on the Bush administration at the expence of national security. Any review of Bush Exec Orders and laws signed by him MUST be above reproach.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I suggest that Obama's going to be too busy to handle this personally. ;)
 
Socrtease said:
I think even better would be to have the AG put together a panel of this nations BEST Constitutional law scholars from seveal different Law Schools and firms. Don't worry about their political pursuasion and have them review them. My fear is that if he puts JUST his AG on this it will be more political than anything. I don't want this to LOOK like a Bush bashing. What I want is for people who know the Constitution to do the right thing regardless of politics. If not then all we will hear from a small but vocal group of neocons is how this is a politically motivated hit job on the Bush administration at the expence of national security. Any review of Bush Exec Orders and laws signed by him MUST be above reproach.
Click to expand...

At first I kinda agreed with this Soc, but then on second thought, you mean beyond reproach like the republicans send down their orders? If we let them put us on the defensive they’ll keep us there. You know every president has a right to overturn the previous president’s executive orders. Do you remember when bush first came into office? Do you know the first thing that son of a bitch did ?(while Al Qaeda was getting ready to hit us by the way) the first thing he did was to overturn Clinton’s executive order lowering the amount of arsenic (I think it was arsenic), allowed in our drinking water!

Where were the experts? How was that above reproach? Why is it the first thing Democrats always hear is “Democrats have to be careful here”.
Careful of what? Getting some sanity back in this country?
 
Socrtease said:
I think even better would be to have the AG put together a panel of this nations BEST Constitutional law scholars from seveal different Law Schools and firms. Don't worry about their political pursuasion and have them review them. My fear is that if he puts JUST his AG on this it will be more political than anything. I don't want this to LOOK like a Bush bashing. What I want is for people who know the Constitution to do the right thing regardless of politics. If not then all we will hear from a small but vocal group of neocons is how this is a politically motivated hit job on the Bush administration at the expence of national security. Any review of Bush Exec Orders and laws signed by him MUST be above reproach.
Click to expand...

Completely dead on.

That would go a long way toward restoring some degree of constitutionality.
 
Darla said:
At first I kinda agreed with this Soc, but then on second thought, you mean beyond reproach like the republicans send down their orders? If we let them put us on the defensive they’ll keep us there. You know every president has a right to overturn the previous president’s executive orders. Do you remember when bush first came into office? Do you know the first thing that son of a bitch did ?(while Al Qaeda was getting ready to hit us by the way) the first thing he did was to overturn Clinton’s executive order lowering the amount of arsenic (I think it was arsenic), allowed in our drinking water!

Where were the experts? How was that above reproach? Why is it the first thing Democrats always hear is “Democrats have to be careful here”.
Careful of what? Getting some sanity back in this country?
Click to expand...
That's not what I mean Darla. What I mean is don't prescreen your experts, like the Bush administration did by getting their take on the issue that you want them to advise on. What I want is genuine Constitutional scholars and practitioners. I don't want a panel of experts that have already said everything the Bush administration has done violates the constitution. I want people that look at the executive orders then place them in the light of what the Constitution says. If the orders don't comport with that constitutional template then they recommend getting rid of them. If every person on your panel has already prejudged these then you are creating a Kangaroo court and not a genuine constitutional evaluation of the previous orders.
 
Socrtease said:
That's not what I mean Darla. What I mean is don't prescreen your experts, like the Bush administration did by getting their take on the issue that you want them to advise on. What I want is genuine Constitutional scholars and practitioners. I don't want a panel of experts that have already said everything the Bush administration has done violates the constitution. I want people that look at the executive orders then place them in the light of what the Constitution says. If the orders don't comport with that constitutional template then they recommend getting rid of them. If every person on your panel has already prejudged these then you are creating a Kangaroo court and not a genuine constitutional evaluation of the previous orders.
Click to expand...


I think that's going to be difficult considering the a substantial number of the most reputable constitutional scholars and law professors have already come out against a lot of the things Chimp has done.
 
Socrtease said:
I think even better would be to have the AG put together a panel of this nations BEST Constitutional law scholars from seveal different Law Schools and firms. Don't worry about their political pursuasion and have them review them. My fear is that if he puts JUST his AG on this it will be more political than anything. I don't want this to LOOK like a Bush bashing. What I want is for people who know the Constitution to do the right thing regardless of politics. If not then all we will hear from a small but vocal group of neocons is how this is a politically motivated hit job on the Bush administration at the expence of national security. Any review of Bush Exec Orders and laws signed by him MUST be above reproach.
Click to expand...
You also shouldn't limit it to only Bush's orders, it should be all orders that are currently in effect.
 
Socrtease said:
That's not what I mean Darla. What I mean is don't prescreen your experts, like the Bush administration did by getting their take on the issue that you want them to advise on. What I want is genuine Constitutional scholars and practitioners. I don't want a panel of experts that have already said everything the Bush administration has done violates the constitution. I want people that look at the executive orders then place them in the light of what the Constitution says. If the orders don't comport with that constitutional template then they recommend getting rid of them. If every person on your panel has already prejudged these then you are creating a Kangaroo court and not a genuine constitutional evaluation of the previous orders.
Click to expand...

Well, I think Tiana made a good point after this post, but I get your point. We’ll see how it works out. The fact is as you know, some of this shit is wildly unconstitutional on its face, not to mention un-American, and I don’t want to see democrats on their knees the second some pundit announces “the Democrats have to be careful here”. Which is what they usually immediately do when anyone, no matter who it is, says that. “OMG WE’VE OVERREACHED. QUICK, ISSUE AN APOLOGY AND ASK THE REPUBLICANS WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO”.
It’s one of the biggest reasons we’re in this mess as a country to begin with.
 
Epicurus said:
Probably about 80% of the functions our government performs are "wildly unconstitutional".
Click to expand...

Yes, when one considers Social Security to be “Unconstitutional” and the income tax to be “illegal” then one could come to that number.

The rest of us laugh, and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top