Comments on: Obama Census Power Grab May Violate Constitution(Media Silent)

By: junglejim

junglejim — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:26:35 +0000

Okay, I am a liberal, but I do not support anarchy and wish the census to stay under the Commerce department. It determines school funding, congressional and senatorial districts, among other funding issues. I don’t support this measure. To label it liberal, is just that a bigoted label that is made by someone who doesn’t study all the facts. I think your article is great, just some comments are off key. This possible subversion of power is something that should be watched, such as the probable initiation of government funded youth groups, such as the ones in Russia.

By: junglejim

junglejim — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:19:48 +0000

I am astonished that your site unlike all the other sites, actually quotes the constitution. This is shining light in the illiterate atmosphere of today’s politics shadowed by heresay and innuendo in today’s politics! Catch this Fox new!

By: Los hechos son obstinados (la dimisión de Gregg, otro jarro de agua fría para Obama) « Sarah Palin en EspaÃ±ol

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:13:07 +0000

[...] que pasa con el censo lo ha analizado muy bien GayPatriot â€“sÃ, en Estados Unidos hay gays que votan Republicano, y no pocos â€“, comenzando con una [...]

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:46:36 +0000

Apparently the talking points have still not come in.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:49:11 +0000

#11 – Unless you are Joe Biden. Then you think the executive branch is covered under Article I.

And they say GWB was stupid? Puh-leeze.

Regards,
Peter H.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:32:55 +0000

Now, here’s an example of chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:19:50 +0000

Undoubtedly they are waiting for the DailyKos and Talking Points Memo to tell them what to think.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:14:14 +0000

The silence from the libs is deafening.

By: Gene in Pennsylvania

Gene in Pennsylvania — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:18:33 +0000

Look it is liberals and leftists who believe the Constitution is a “living document”. What that means is they can make it say anything they want it to say. And most of the American people have gone to public schools that don’t teach anything about government. Except that a nanny state is preferable. They want ACORN census workers to be able to “estimate” the number of Democrat homeless folks at the underpasses in Philly and Pittsburgh.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:53:29 +0000

More proof that the number one priority on Obama and the Democrats agenda is abusing policy to cement Democrat power.

By: Michigan-Matt

Michigan-Matt — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:49:54 +0000

Well, if former Sen Judd Gregg as Commerce Secy is anything of his past note, he’ll make loud, clarion noises after he’s sworn in… he’s no dummie, no wallflower and as a long-standing member of the Sons of the American Revolution, he knows the independence of the USCB is vital. As a GOP stalwart, a lawyer and a guy with an ego bigger than NH, I doubt even the White House will be able to get the kind of control over the US Census Bureau that folks are rightly concerned about today.

If it was Richardson, I’d be alarmed. If it was some GOP shrinking violet, I’d be concerned. But a proven Washington insider with Gregg’s pedigree? I think the chickens will be safe from the White House weasel in chief.

By: Roberto

Roberto — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:18:53 +0000

I have suspected that Barak Obama has little respect for the Constitution that he was sworn to defend. His choice of Eric Holder, an enemy of the Second Amendment, Nancy Pelosi and Chuch SchumerÂ´s desire to have the Fairness Doctrine enacted. is an assault on the First Amendment. In a previous post I had opined that if Obama was lucky enough to be elected to a second term that he would propose an Amendment to repeal the 22nd, so that he could run for a third and fourth terms. A day after the inauguration a Democratic congressman announced that he is already drafting a proposal to bring to committee to amend the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This is typical of the radical left world wide. Chavez was rebuffed last year so he has another referendum on Feb. 15th to continue until 2019. Morales and Correa both have drafted Constitutions that extend their and their socialist/communist parties in power. Both have succeeded with about a 60 to 40 vote, although opposition parties claim fraud and intimidation at polling places as the reason for new constitutions winning the referundum in their respective countries.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:54:48 +0000

Since Obamaâ€™s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republicâ€™s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obamaâ€™s Kenyan birth and his fatherâ€™s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited â€˜after-the-factâ€™ short form â€˜certificateâ€™. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment â€˜citizenâ€™ is not sufficient. A â€˜Presidentâ€™ MUST BE an Article 2 â€˜natural born citizenâ€™ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERSâ€™ INTENT.

By: Tully

Tully — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:35:37 +0000

Title 13 of US Code is really really clear about where Congress put the authority, and it’s not in the White House. The Sec’y of Commerce can delegte it to others–the White House can’t delegate it for him.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:34:08 +0000

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” â€”Communist Tyrant and mass murderer Josef Stalin (attributed)

By: CR

CR — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:14:48 +0000

At first I was going to poo-poo this as more conspiratorial clap-trap, but the more I read about it the more I think you might be right that it’s an overreach. Initially I would have thought that be delegating the authority to an executive agency Congress was effectively delegating it to the president, but in reading through the law and what other commentators have said, I have to admit there’s a credible argument this is an overreach. Interesting. Is it work an “extra” edition or leading off every half-hour on CNN or Fox? Probably not, but it is interesting and a fair point. Cheers.