Letters to editor

Attacks on President Obama unfounded

By From page A8 | November 20, 2012

This is in response to a recent Thomas Sowell column. In that column he said, “Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.”

Many right-wing commentators, such as tea party members, have also made such accusations, particularly with regard to the Constitution. However, none of them has provided specific examples of actions by President Obama that were improper under the Constitution, other than the Affordable Care Act. And that particular act was declared to be Constitutional by the conservative majority Supreme Court.

It seems to me that if you are going to accuse the president of the United States of not abiding by the Constitution, you should at least provide a specific example or examples to support your accusation. I therefore challenge any anti-Obama readers to do just that.

Charles McLaughlin


Letter to the Editor


Discussion | 17 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • RichNovember 20, 2012 - 9:09 am

    Thats not true charlie. Obama's extra-constitutional and list of usurptions is very long. Lets start with his bona fides and documentation. Where's the passport records, college applications and transcripts? Lets see them! Foreigners are not supposed to be president and Hussein smacks of being a foreign born communist muslim out to destroy all--clearly the choice of California voters.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DJKNovember 20, 2012 - 9:38 am

    Strange how since the election has been over for 2 weeks a few of the regular posters on DR are not to be found. Were they paid plants by the Republicans to frequent forums and spin? Where's Marci been lately?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JonesyNovember 20, 2012 - 10:02 am

    Gary (G-man, AKA the Plant) honored his word (so far) and crawled back into his hole. Marci is still pruning her nose back & feeding the trimmings to the wood chipper after all the lies she told.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sir VesaNovember 20, 2012 - 10:30 am

    Introducing WDGS (What Does Google Say?). As a public service to fellow DR website members, I humbly submit that we can save time and aggravation from now on by responding to Mr. McLaughlin and others who demand "facts" on this board with a simple, WDGS? We all use Google nowadays, right? Why go through the hassle of consulting Google then transferring our factual nuggets here? From now on I say, WDGS. Let's take the drudgery out of fact-finding and reporting here. WDGS? Lots of stuff. Take your pick, according to your own sensibilities and preferences. Then just respond with a simple, WDGS?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • FMM (French male model)November 20, 2012 - 10:48 am

    Bonjour, I get all my info from the Daily Currant site.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinNovember 20, 2012 - 12:58 pm

    That site is a riot full of laughs. Unfortunately the lampooning does run parallel with how some people perceive things.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • FMMNovember 20, 2012 - 3:04 pm

    Au Contraire Monsieur Bunting. I was merely pointing out that you can not believe everything you see on the web. No?! In a funny sorta way. Oui?! Now excusez-moi, I have zee date with an American Gal whom I told, all French Male Models have zee hairy backs & she should love me for it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • FMMNovember 20, 2012 - 3:37 pm

    Anyways Danny, back to reality...I actualy posted a couple of things from that site here to see if anyone would bite or run with it & even Marci LOL...The latest on it about the Romneys "Gifts" comment is a riot...Not PC...But a riot...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895November 20, 2012 - 4:37 pm

    SirV: Ah, I see. But you can't use that dodge. What we want to know is what YOU believe, regardless of your source. Tell us your source too, but telling someone to do their own research is useless. If you can't back up your belief, or it isn't as fact-based as you claim, "man up" and say so.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksNovember 20, 2012 - 6:06 pm

    rlw895, you are SO right! After four years of endless research and trying to curb the incessant lies on these pages, I found telling everyone that the truth is there, go check it out was just plain futile. Then I was accused of all sorts of nonsense that we now know was just because it was easier for them to deny my efforts and the truth as well! Obama is back and America is going to be better because of it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sir VesaNovember 20, 2012 - 7:38 pm

    RLW: Like CD before me, I have laid out a masterpiece of wisdom and guidance to the visitors on this website, only to be rebuffed by the very folks I was trying to lift up and free from their narrow, humorless and cloistered mindsets. So be it. I now declare the WDGS movement a thing of the past. Pity.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksNovember 20, 2012 - 9:33 pm

    Sir Vesa, clearly we have differing view points on fact vs fiction. Not going to waste any more of my time here.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ProConNovember 20, 2012 - 11:34 am

    I'm not "anti-Obama" so much as "pro-Constitution," but I'll give a few examples: 1) making recess appointments while Congress was in session (US Const. Art. II Sec. 2); 2) the administration's contempt of court by continuing the offshore drilling ban (after the BP oil spill) after it was struck down by a federal judge (US Const. Art. III Sec. 2); and 3) interfering in the management of a private company by forcing the CEO of GM to resign (there is simply nothing in the Constitution that could be construed as giving any branch of the federal government that kind of power).

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cliff bensonNovember 20, 2012 - 1:35 pm

    And..the so-called Patriot Act enacted by Bush....thats constitutional? Personally, my faith in the majority voter has been rewarded. I recall an October pro-Romney .....(well, any Republican)....; panel on FOX. One stated that statistically he could predict a landslide for Romney...which brought bright smiles and self-congratulated exuberance by the panel members. Election nite...and when Ohio voted for Obama...I had to jump to FOX...and see that awful constipated and stunned look on the face of Karl Rove. After all he had encouraged and chaired the $300 million cost by him and his Billion Boys Club in an effort to buy Washington. With bluster and disbelief he cried "No, Wait" and caused on-air red-faced embarrassment for FOX predicters. In the nites that followed, I had to watch FOX, particularly Hannity, O'Reilly and Sustern read from the Republican script. I almost felt sorry for their awkward stumbling and pathetic digging for anti-Obama stuff to offset Romney's (and FOX's) election defeat. Congrats America! You prevented the all-white Billionaire Boy's Club from buying America;

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895November 20, 2012 - 4:44 pm

    ProCon: That's a good list, but I also agree with Cliff. The worst constitutional abuse in recent memory is the Patriot Act, and the Supreme Court, everytime it has had a chance, has essentially said so. That's why we have courts. I have not yet seem the Obama administration fail to comply with a Supreme Court ruling. Lower courts are not final if appealed. And "complying" is sometimes doing the same thing another way. I'm sure ACA was prominently on your list before the Supreme Court ruling last summer.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ProConNovember 20, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    I absolutely agree about the Patriot Act, but the original topic was about Obama. If we expand the list to past presidents, it would be a long list. "I have not yet seem the Obama administration fail to comply with a Supreme Court ruling. Lower courts are not final if appealed." So lower court rulings don't have to be complied with? Or have I misunderstood you?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895November 20, 2012 - 11:17 pm

    SirV: Yes. Lower courts often stay their decision pending appeal, and sometimes a higher court orders the decision stayed until it can rule on an appeal. The buck stops with the Supreme Court, if a case gets that far. There is some argument that Congress and the President have equal authority to interpret the Constitution, but for over 200 years, ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), we have tacitly agreed to the judiciary's claim of final constitutional interpretation and judicial review. During the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich dredged up the idea that the President does not have to follow the courts' constitutional interpretations, to nearly universal ridicule. But there is some legal and historical basis for that view. Obama is not making the same claim; he will undoubtedly comply with Supreme Court rulings no matter how bad he thinks they are, and some of them are pretty bad, like Citizen's United.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.