Obama Supporters Need Not Apply

[brownbrown]

veto isn't irrelevant.
and i partially agree with your k message about ending the filibuster, the idea behind it is that it forces moderation to get enough votes to block it.
the threat keeps legislation honest and more centrist...and mitt is a much better statesmen than obama ever could be, def not perfect though...i hope the party coalesce's behind him, for the good of the country

A veto can be overruled, especially if both house and senate are one party.
Mitt is an elitist, he'd be doomed in the general.
unless a lot of broke mofos like you vote him in.

 

[javaguru]

How did you get to public schools and the declaration?
Focus Coffee. Focius.

You're using the preamble to bootstrap, ain't legally binding. See, the Supreme Court.

 

[binö]

A veto can be overruled, especially if both house and senate are one party.
Mitt is an elitist, he'd be doomed in the general.
unless a lot of broke mofos like you vote him in.

Mitt is most def a elitist, a 1 percenter.
and so is obama...the difference is, Obama tries to mask his elitism thru populism and playing to minorities like he is one of the bros.
and lol at inferring i'm broke and broke voters support mitt...i have a great job and my bank stack is significant at the moment...you and i both know who the brokeass mofos are voting for, ironically the one is partially responsible for a lotta broke'ness (obama)

 

[brownbrown]

You're using the preamble to bootstrap, ain't legally binding. See, the Supreme Court.

Article 1 section 8, legally binding...
You Fail.


And im glad your not talking about the Constitution finally.

Java : "I can't believe you are challenging my on this, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding"
Lololol




DrOiD BioNiC EF App!

 

[javaguru]

Article 1 section 8, legally binding...
You Fail.


And im glad your not talking about the Constitution finally.

Java : "I can't believe you are challenging my on this, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding"
Lololol




DrOiD BioNiC EF App!

The Preamble isn't legally binding; What is your point? What is your point in referencing Article I Section 8? Barry care doesn't impose a tax, it's a penalty based on his own words.



Secondly, let's address your assertion that Barry is a "Constitutional Scholar." To be a scholar one has to contribute to the body of knowledge in your discipline.....Name me a single article published by Barry in a reputable law journal on Con law.

This from a legitimate scholar....and colleague...

 

[javaguru]

Waiting for your contribution brown brown...

 

[javaguru]

Still waiting...you must be a government employee..

 

[javaguru]

I'll save brownbrown from googling him like he googles his counter arguments.
Richard Allen Epstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Richard Allen Epstein (born April 17, 1943) is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law. He is also an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute. Epstein became a permanent faculty member at NYU School of Law in 2010.[1] Epstein was chosen in a poll as one of the most influential legal thinkers of modern times."

Just sayin BrownBrown...It's interesting to see a legitimate legal scholar give his opinion on Barry, a colleague.

 

[javaguru]

[/QUOTE]

It's interesting to watch the assessment of a distinguished legal scholar give his opinion on Barry as an adjunct.

 

[brownbrown]

The Preamble isn't legally binding; What is your point? What is your point in referencing Article I Section 8? Barry care doesn't impose a tax, it's a penalty based on his own words.


Secondly, let's address your assertion that Barry is a "Constitutional Scholar." To be a scholar one has to contribute to the body of knowledge in your discipline.....Name me a single article published by Barry in a reputable law journal on Con law.

Your definition of Scholar is a Bullshit definition. You picked what you wanted the definition to be and then began arguing your definition validity. WTF? Do you see how obsurd that was?

schol·ar/ˈskälər/




Noun:

• A specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic: "a Hebrew scholar".
• A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study.

Now, If you do a little Research, you would know that Barry did an article for the Harvard Law Review.


Now, you are going to argue that thats not a reputable law journal.


Also, To answer your Bullshit definition because its easy,

To be a scholar one has to contribute to the body of knowledge in your discipline.....

1990 president of the Harvard Law Review.

1992 - 2004 Barry tought Law at University of Chicago - Thats 12 years of Contributing to the body of Knowledge.........