tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post7075624030960532893..comments2023-10-03T07:01:41.144-05:00Comments on Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans: Alarm SoundedAlways On Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-40601547452697284632014-02-19T03:38:34.758-06:002014-02-19T03:38:34.758-06:00You are correct: BHO is not our first "lawles...You are correct: BHO is not our first "lawless" President. What <i>Andrew Jackson did with the American Indians</i> is <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_was_President_Jackson_able_to_overrule_the_Supreme_Court_and_force_the_Cherokee_to_move" rel="nofollow">rather complicated</a>:<br /><br /><i>Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion(s) in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the two Supreme Court decisions people mistakenly believe President Jackson overruled, applied only to the State of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed his personal opinion about the United States' legal and ethical duty to the Native Americans within the body of the legal opinion, but his comments (called obiter dictum or dicta) weren't part of the Court's official decisions and weren't legally binding on the United States. </i><br /><br />Warren knows more about this topic than I do. Maybe he'll show up to clarify the matter.<br /><br />But note <a href="http://www.usa-presidents.info/jackson.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a> about Jackson's lasting legacy:<br /><br /><i>Jackson is remembered for introducing the spoils system to American politics. Upon his election as President, a sizable number of people holding positions in Washington, DC, offices found that they had suddenly been replaced by supporters of Jackson, who had worked to ensure his election. Jackson saw this system as promoting the growth of democracy , as more people were involved in politics. This practice has endured in political circles in the United States ever since. Additionally, Jackson pressured states to lower voting requirements to further the expansion of democracy. </i>Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33703151365479453312014-02-18T18:48:51.771-06:002014-02-18T18:48:51.771-06:00AOW: I had never thought about the subject until l...AOW: I had never thought about the subject until lately. I blogged about it, too. Just remember what Andrew Jackson did with the American Indians in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17665311979954859271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-72451951729026769292014-02-18T16:44:15.054-06:002014-02-18T16:44:15.054-06:00Bob,
It is not as hard for a dictator to take over...Bob,<br /><i>It is not as hard for a dictator to take over the USA as we thought.</i><br /><br />I know!<br /><br />Why are so many Americans ignoring the danger signs that are flashing like crazy? Because their "devices" are still working?<br /><br />Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-28596727562964454352014-02-18T16:07:31.276-06:002014-02-18T16:07:31.276-06:00With Obama writing laws, we are screwed. Nobody ca...With Obama writing laws, we are screwed. Nobody can come up with a way to rectify the situation. How do you get a law enforcement organization to go to the White House, arrest the guy, and make him do a perp-walk on international TV?<br />Since all federal law enforcement reports to him, nobody has the guts to jail the buy.<br /><br />It is not as hard for a dictator to take over the USA as we thought. Neither the Supreme Court or the Congress have the wherewithal to physically challenge an outlaw Executive.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17665311979954859271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-62266807774410963162014-02-17T19:47:26.046-06:002014-02-17T19:47:26.046-06:00Of course anyone who has some knowledge is nuts, e...Of course anyone who has some knowledge is nuts, even if he is a leftist--right, Liberalman?Mustanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06388694472897425202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-72071289952344553712014-02-17T18:32:53.286-06:002014-02-17T18:32:53.286-06:00Geez, I didn't see this. Maybe it's becaus...Geez, I didn't see this. Maybe it's because Turley is nuts and Fox News sucks.Liberalmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04612454539046863752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-57475169574978998652014-02-17T13:36:34.566-06:002014-02-17T13:36:34.566-06:00I have been procrastinating on a post on this topi...I have been procrastinating on a post on this topic. There's a video from Obama in 2008:<br /><br />http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/13/obama_2008_i_intend_to_reverse_bush_bringing_more_and_more_power_into_the_executive.html<br /><br />SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the constitution very seriously. The biggest problem that we're facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America. (Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008)<br /><br />More than just another promise broken.Mike's Americahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01262938295909490454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-40499969433285768212014-02-17T12:36:57.289-06:002014-02-17T12:36:57.289-06:00Yes.
I typed in a brief response before seeing yo...Yes.<br /><br />I typed in a brief response before seeing your comment here.<br /><br />This is, in your words, the brutal truth, and the reality that most Americans don't have a clue about: <i><b>[T]he Constitution doesn’t actually mean what you or I think it means. It only means what the Supreme Court thinks that it means. Thus, even the light headed leftist can understand why presidential elections are so important: they get to select judges for the Supreme Court —hopefully those who support the president more than they do the Constitution.</b></i>Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-91999342974928843932014-02-17T12:30:04.506-06:002014-02-17T12:30:04.506-06:00This is exactly what I was saying in my comment to...This is exactly what I was saying in my comment to you at <a href="http://gollygeeez.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Z’s blog</a> earlier today. Exactly. I agree with COF—we finally have identified an honest Democrat--not that it will do much good.Sam Huntingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14780557316548397352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-623566046074788002014-02-17T09:37:46.882-06:002014-02-17T09:37:46.882-06:00Of course Not. Why would they want to feature a fr...Of course Not. Why would they want to feature a freak of nature; an honest Democrat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com