2006-11-01 07:37:01 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
please do not answer a question with a question. this is called yahoo ANSWERS you know. Also i did not say he violated the constitution i said he decided that it needed to be changed. Thank you
2006-11-01 07:45:45 · update #1
Can you be specific about which part he violated? Please refer to the Article and Section, and explain what he did to violate it.
If you're referring to his favoring an amendment to ban gay marriage, the process for making amendments already exists in the Constitution. He was proposing something go through the process, unlike some of the changes to the Constitution that have come out of USSC decisions dealing with "emanations" from "penumbras", and arguments about whether the Second Amendment really says what it says.
2006-11-01 07:41:40 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
enable me wager: you're no longer a Constitutional pupil, and that i'll wager you have in no way even taken a Constitutional regulation classification. lower back: if he suggested that, no longer a single credible source would nicely be certain it, maximum extraordinarily no longer YOU. 2d, many chief executives have defended and guarded, under their expenses and oath, without consistently being captivated with what replaced into completed, and this replaced into PRESUMED by utilising the founding fathers. Please attempt to historic past your self till now asking this form of question in a discussion board the place rational human beings can see what you spew. I could think of your point of incorrect information could quickly grow to be awkward and embarrassing. Parenthetically, "redistribution of wealth" has been around for a minimum of 5000 years, and doubtless long till now that, each and every time the 1st actual tax or tithe got here alongside, and particularly the 1st time joint attempt and difficult artwork and/or money replaced into needed to construct a dam or a highway or only to domicile grain. it is not only no longer something NEW, that's the very essence of government, left or extraordinary, and consistently has been. How unusual that is named unique to Obama... From what source does this lack of information subject? Your hyperlink is as inappropriate as you're.
2016-12-16 17:40:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
About as long as it took for me to decide you are a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about.
2006-11-01 08:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by Caleb's Mom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before you go handing out rulings on Constitutional Law, you may want to learn something about the subject, first.
2006-11-01 07:40:27 · answer #4 · answered by Michael E 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush is stupid. I can say that because of the freedom of speech amendment. Bush is so senseless he probably doesn't even know about the constitution.
2006-11-01 07:39:39 · answer #5 · answered by adviceguy 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If a whiny Liberal is all alone in the woods can anyone hear their tree banging, wet diaper liberal attack machine propaganda? or are they just a stupid lib
2006-11-01 07:50:05 · answer #6 · answered by momojo 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
most likely BEFORE he was elected to office.
2006-11-01 08:23:11 · answer #7 · answered by sexmagnet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For our president to decide the constitution wasn't working for him would imply that he new how to read to begin with....In fact if you ask him I doubt he even knows what the constitution is.
2006-11-01 07:39:09 · answer #8 · answered by bbopper 2 · 3⤊ 5⤋
23 days, 42 minutes and 22 seconds.
FP
2006-11-01 07:39:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
he decided that before he took office, that it did not meet his need, lilke he lied his way into war, he lied his way into office.
Don't forget he was after the man that went after his Daddy.
2006-11-01 07:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by Ginham 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋