# US Constitution



## BobF (Feb 26, 2015)

The US  Constitution and why so much of recent years in the US was not done properly.   So below I will have a link to the Constitution and then print off some of the pertinent parts needed.    I will use the  Wikipedia description but you can also use one of these for closer looks.
 …............
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


 or


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
 …..........


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution


*United States Constitution*

         From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




 The *Constitution of the United States* is the supreme law of the United States of America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.


  Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-seven times.[2] In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[3][4] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the United States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions world-wide, are appended to the end of the document. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force.[5] All five pages of the U.S. Constitution are written on parchment.[6]


 The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States is the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations.


*Article One*

Article One describes the Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 1, reads, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."


Article I, Section 8 enumerates the legislative powers, which include:To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
​Article I, Section 9 lists eight specific limits on congressional power.
  The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article One to allow Congress to enact legislation that is neither expressly listed in the enumerated power nor expressly denied in the limitations on Congress. In _McCulloch v. Maryland_ (1819), the Supreme Court read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to take action that would "enable [it] to perform the high duties assigned to it [by the Constitution] in the manner most beneficial to the people,"[35] even if that action is not itself within the enumerated powers. Chief Justice Marshall clarified: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."[35]


*Article Two*

Article Two describes the office of the President of the United States. The President is head of the executive branch of the federal government, as well as the nation's, head of state and head of government.


 Section 2 grants substantive powers to the president:


The president is the Commander in     Chief of the United     States Armed Forces, and of the state militias when these are     called into federal service. 
The president may require opinions     of the principal officers of the federal government. 
The president may grant reprieves and pardons, except in     cases of impeachment (i.e., the president cannot pardon himself or     herself to escape impeachment by Congress). 
 Section 2 grants and limits the president's appointment powers:


The president may make treaties,     with the advice     and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators     who are present agree. 
With the advice and consent of the     Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public     ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other     officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise     described in the Constitution. 
Congress may give the power to     appoint lower officers to the President alone, to the courts, or to     the heads of departments. 
The president may make any of these appointments during a     congressional recess. Such a "recess     appointment" expires at the end of the next session of     Congress. 
 

 Section 3 opens by describing the president's relations with Congress:


The president reports on the State     of the Union. 
     The Recommendation Clause:[38]     The president has the power and duty[38]     to recommend to Congress's consideration such measures which the     president deems as "necessary and expedient". 
The president may convene either     house, or both houses, of Congress. 
When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of     adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date. 
 Section 3 adds:



The president receives     ambassadors. 
The president sees that the laws     are faithfully executed. 
The president commissions all the offices of the federal     government. 
 

*Article Three*

Article Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. There shall be one court called the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and an appeals process. Congress enacts law defining crimes and providing for punishment. Article Three also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason.
 …...................


 Nothing in these extracts from the Constitution give the President any rights to change our laws or tell the Congress what their answers will be.    He only has the right of  Section 3 The Recommendation Clause,   'The president has the power and duty to recommend to Congress's consideration such measures which the president deems as "necessary and expedient".'  



 I am sure some will not like what I am posting, so be it.    Facts are far much better than any political comments can be.   And the US will be much better when we do get back to working as the Constitution says we should.   The people are to run this country, not any President has that power or should have that power.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Here I am again.    This post had slid all the way down to the bottom so I bring it back to the top.

Nearly 60 had at least opened it up and hopefully read what was posted.   I wish some had taken the time to comment on what they had seen and read.   We really do have a problem with our government not doing as the Constitution says it should.   I think both parties have this problem and continue to operate outside the Constitutions ways but the current government is far worse than any before.   Money and expenditures are to be handled by the Congress, not the President who can only suggest to the Congress what he wants to see  happening.   Except for war or defenses, and even then the President is limited and need Congress to support him or there is a time limit.   Our budget and debts have gone way out of order in recent years.

So back to the top and hoping some might have comment to make.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 28, 2015)

My comment?  This is posted solely so you can bash Obama's decisions.  The end.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 28, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> My comment?  This is posted solely so you can bash Obama's decisions.  The end.



Why do you think no one commented.   You can see THAT agenda a mile away..


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Why do you think no one commented.   You can see THAT agenda a mile away..



I knew that as soon as I saw the poster and the title!


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Prejudged and not any real inputs.    I did not hide that I considered Obama one of our worst offenders of the Constitution we have ever had.   So what is new with these responses.   Yeah, the poster is bad, especially when he says the Constitution is to be followed and not tossed aside.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 28, 2015)

:zz:


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> :zz:



Ditto.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 28, 2015)

Thanks for posting this Bob. You won't change any minds here. The democrats don't care about the constitution or even about this country. They don't want a president, they want a king.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

The Democrats here have grown weary of trying to educate you two.  EOM


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

But I am still willing to try to educate some Democrats.   Luckily in the US we do have some rather centered and intelligent Democrats that are willing to discuss and learn.   The remainder of the 30%, or less, of our Democrat voters do seem pretty one minded and often wrong.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> The Democrats here have grown weary of trying to educate you two.  EOM




Ain't that the truth!.....  It's like talking to brick walls...   It's pointless.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

You can only educate a willing mind and these few here aren't willing.:seeyou:


----------



## Ina (Feb 28, 2015)

Can a government be sued for not following the constitution?? :hide:


----------



## Glinda (Feb 28, 2015)

Hey, BobF - you know there are plenty of blogs around for people like you who hate President Obama.  Maybe you should focus on one of those.  Otherwise, you should obviously chill out.  The rage you're expressing is not good for your blood pressure.  Take care, BobF.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

Ina said:


> Can a government be sued for not following the constitution?? :hide:



It's definitions of what the Constitution "means" that brings forth the problems.


----------



## Ina (Feb 28, 2015)

Thank you AZ, I'm not very political, and I couldn't tell you if I'm a democrat or a republican.  But I do enjoy learning about the ways a government can be run. :wave:


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

Ina said:


> Thank you AZ, I'm not very political, and I couldn't tell you if I'm a democrat or a republican.  But I do enjoy learning about the ways a government can be run. :wave:



I am proud to say I am a former Republican who saw the light and am now a Democrat.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> It's definitions of what the Constitution "means" that brings forth the problems.



This is very true Jim.... For example how the term "Well regulated militia" got twisted into "unregulated populace"


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This is very true Jim.... For example how the term "Well regulated militia" got twisted into "unregulated populace"



Yes, good example!


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This is very true Jim.... For example how the term "Well regulated militia" got twisted into "unregulated populace"



How true that is!


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I am proud to say I am a former Republican who saw the light and am now a Democrat.



Always been a democrat.  My dad was one and he campaigned for local and state candidates.  So does my son. And my nephew.  My sister is a former republican, now a democrat. One brother is a democrat, one a republican.  Nephews, nieces and their spouses are democrats.  

In the UK I'm a member of the Labour party but getting pretty fed up with them.  Disgusted with the Tories.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

Well, Reagan cured me!!


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> Prejudged and not any real inputs.    I did not hide that I considered Obama one of our worst offenders of the Constitution we have ever had.   So what is new with these responses.   Yeah, the poster is bad, especially when he says the Constitution is to be followed and not tossed aside.



Do you not recall the G.W. Bush years?


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Hey, BobF - you know there are plenty of blogs around for people like you who hate President Obama.  Maybe you should focus on one of those.  Otherwise, you should obviously chill out.  The rage you're expressing is not good for your blood pressure.  Take care, BobF.



Well, it appears that you, and others, just do not read well at all.   I do not hate Obama and have said that before too and in other posts.   I do just not like the way he is working to push the US into overall bankruptcy with his unauthorized debt building and foolish spending that is going to hurt all in this country and maybe other countries too.   I have not said he should be gone at all.   Just would like to see him use his proper channels in his ideas implementing.   I would think that all would wish for that.   Let the Congress do it's job for once.    The Congress is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.    They make good incomes so we should let them earn it.

All this is spelled out in the Constitution.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Do you not recall the G.W. Bush years?



Do you have examples?


----------



## AprilT (Feb 28, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Do you not recall the G.W. Bush years?





http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

How often have presidents used their executive orders


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> Do you have examples?



Yes, regarding Bush's abuse of the Constitution, here's a good read.   Some more.    This one is from a website called Center for Constitutional Rights, appropriate for a thread such as this.  Another good read:  sourcewatch.org


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

Between Aprils charts and Tims links.....I hear nothing but crickets as a response.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Yes, regarding Bush's abuse of the Constitution, here's a good read.   Some more.    This one is from a website called Center for Constitutional Rights, appropriate for a thread such as this.  Another good read:  sourcewatch.org



OK, I did look up and read lots of that information.    All biased as from the liberal and Democrat side of the issues.

The American Prospects - liberal opinions and really not proofs of anything.

Forbes - more liberal opinions but also more general as it involves all Presidents situations.   Very general actually.

Vincent Warren - opinions and does not like Obama either.

Source Watch - biased a lot.    We had two war going on and for me, I liked the idea of a prison in Cuba rather than in the US itself.   Full legal was being provided as was due for war folks.    Reports by Democrats are hardly biased?    Definitely biased.   Just like many of the Republican reports will be.   Biased to back up these party claims.  

I say it again.  I wish we were just people voting for our leaders and get away from these two major parties twisting things and doing their darnedest to control our ways of life.   The people should do that job without all this outside pressure to look alike.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Between Aprils charts and Tims links.....I hear nothing but crickets as a response.



You don't want me to take time to read TNTHomas offerings?


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

Frankly Bob, I don't care what you read or don't read.  The chart alone should keep you chewing your fingernails.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Why?   Charts don't say much at all.   Just numbers of statements, but not a word about content or intent.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> Why?   Charts don't say much at all.   Just numbers of statements, but not a word about content or intent.



See?  This is our problem Bob.  You present a theory and when it is adequately refuted, you want play semantics.  Sorry, I am not a taxi dancer and I bore of your two step.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Oh for whatever.    What was this theory I am supposed to have started?   And how does this chart you are talking about refute what you claim I said?    I was looking at the chart of Presidents and how many executive orders they each made.   Nothing was said about those orders and if they were OK'd by the Congress or not or if they were big orders or just small insignificant orders.   What have those charts said but numbers of orders.   

As I remember it the problem that is getting many folks angry with Obama was his adding to the US debt to a number that goes way back closer to WWII and not one effort to avoid going into debt.   Many of his actions have been in spite of the Congress and with out writing orders to do things.   They just got done without orders at all.   Like his changing of the Obama care rules and limits to suit different situations.   Should all have gone through the Congress.   So I still don't know what you were pointing at and calling it a theory.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

*.....and the band played on....*


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

So what was my theory that you claim I made?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 28, 2015)

About the debt (and Obama), does this make sense or is it just a bunch of lies?  http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

Unfortunately this chart is not true, in fact it is grossly distorted and therefore not true.   What they are calling the Republican debt is just not true.   Look into the Bush years and it stays fairly level until his last two years when both the House and the Senate are won by Pelosi and Reid, both Democrats.   Then it takes a hard turn up and continues up for all of Obama's years.

Compare the real chart to that faked up chart to see that difference.   Read the bottom line of who was in charge of Congress as those debts went up.   Notice the blue color in the last two years of Bush's term.   Democrats in charge during the debt rise.   Also check under Clinton's time and see who was in the Congress when his debt did a large drop.   Congress is really supposed to be running the show, but not when Obama and his Democrat buddies are in control.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 28, 2015)

:crying:


----------



## AprilT (Feb 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> Why?   Charts don't say much at all.   Just numbers of statements, but not a word about content or intent.


 
Did you not visit the link that was included?  The point of the chart was to show that executive orders have been used and if you really wanted to know what and how these orders have been carried out, you could have found that out instead of making false accusations against one man who has done nothing different than in using these these orders as past presidents have done on occasion.  If you have information to verify that those presidents all used their orders differently each and every time, could you present that please, from what I've garnered from reading, Reagan and Bush have used their pen alter laws in the face of congress where they saw fit.  And even if this president did do so without all the backings, how can that be any surprise when none ever have his back, sometimes one has to take a stand when you know it's never going to be about the good of the people, just about the other person's misguided need to appease the haters. 

If anything, I guess he learned from previous presidents when and how to wield that pen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

This thread started off with a bunch of links followed in kind, though I like would have included a few anyway.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

OK, I went back to read the link on the chart, then I came to read the two links on your post.   All were quite general in manner and matter.   I still have no idea of what those other Presidents signed nor what Obama is signing.  Only that they did sign some sort of notes showing their position on this or that.   So unless I take more time and read all those letters, or at least read about them, I will not know what they were after.   

Right now I think the one your post mentioned he wants to sign, I would say that the entire subject should be allowed to pass through Congress for debate and decisions prior to the President deciding to make it be his way and not that of the peoples representatives in Congress.   After all, maybe the Congress will come up with something like what Obama wants anyway.   We know that those folks will not be sent back to where they come from if clean.   Those that are known to be criminals should be put into their countries hands as criminals usually are.

Obama has a lower score right now but we still have him for another year and a half for the next election.    I expect he will add several more by then.   One big effort of the current Congress is an effort to keep our massive debt from growing any more.   Over 10 trillion more is way too much for our country to have to handle.

Thanks for your inputs.   I did read them so your efforts were not wasted.


----------



## BobF (Feb 28, 2015)

I am glad I re entered my post and asked for more attention.   Sure got it.   I know I have learned a lot, even though it was not about the Constitution as I had hoped.   Have a good night folks.


----------



## AprilT (Feb 28, 2015)

Not sure what you hoped to learn, but, either way I hope you have a good night too.


----------



## Glinda (Feb 28, 2015)

April, this is an excellent and informative chart.  Thanks for posting!


----------



## AprilT (Feb 28, 2015)

You're welcome Glinda.


----------



## Glinda (Feb 28, 2015)

Whew!  I'm so glad to hear that you don't hate President Obama!  What a relief!  Now I can stop worrying about your blood pressure too!


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> OK, I did look up and read lots of that information.    All biased as from the liberal and Democrat side of the issues.
> 
> The American Prospects - liberal opinions and really not proofs of anything.
> 
> ...



Disturbing response, but not entirely unexpected.


----------



## BobF (Mar 1, 2015)

Why is my response so disturbing, annoying, whatever?   Your suggested reading, my responses.   Did you read my last paragraph?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> Why is my response so disturbing, annoying, whatever?   Your suggested reading, my responses.   Did you read my last paragraph?



What is wrong with your last paragraph is it's false equivalancy..   The majority of the lying and twisting comes from Republicans.


----------



## BobF (Mar 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What is wrong with your last paragraph is it's false equivalancy..   The majority of the lying and twisting comes from Republicans.



What ever you say.   Whatever it means?    My question was to the other poster, not you so you don't count at this time.

Your last comment is just an opinion and no truth can be proven one way or the other.

Were you ever on Greypath several years back?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> What ever you say.   Whatever it means?    My question was to the other poster, not you so you don't count at this time.
> 
> Your last comment is just an opinion and no truth can be proven one way or the other.
> 
> Were you ever on Greypath several years back?



hahahaha.... Last I heard everyone was allowed to participate in a thread.....   And.. Bob.... one thing you must learn..  I ALWAYS count..


----------



## BobF (Mar 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> hahahaha.... Last I heard everyone was allowed to participate in a thread.....   And.. Bob.... one thing you must learn..  I ALWAYS count..



True what you said, but often better to not interrupt, and you did not answer my question either.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> True what you said, but often better to not interrupt, and you did not answer my question either.



The answer is NO.


----------



## BobF (Mar 1, 2015)

Thank you.


----------

