(no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Undecided = Constitutional if the practice is allowed to continue and Supreme Court refuses to hear it or rule.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court can only rule on things brought to them. It hasn't been brought to them yet AFAIK. Which means they haven't refused it either. Therefore, it's undecided, not Constitutional.

And your statement is logically false anyways. Undecided isn't undecided if the Court refused to hear it, as that's a decision.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Ok.....

if you say so....
because apparently that's all that's needed...

Intents and purposes, facts and reasons be damned.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, logic is all that's needed. Your last statement is just more idiocy from you though.