What do Obama's ACTIONS tell us about his support of the constitution?
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obama and his minions would like to dictate WHICH religions have the type of religious freedoms that have always been the American way of life. If you are opposed to abortion, believing it to be a form of cold-blooded murder, this administration does not recognize nor do they respect that point of view. Therefore, you are subject to huge fines, penalties and government harassment if you do not comply. The two most famous cases currently fighting for their 1st Amendment rights are Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Church. See the part where it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". By forcing Hobby Lobby, the Catholic Church and any other group to pay for something that goes against the core of their religious beliefs (life and murder), does indeed "prohibit" them from freely exercising their right NOT to support abortion or even simple birth control.
At the same time, this administration will stretch any law to accommodate the needs of Muslims, right down to them getting special meals in prison that are as Sotomayor wrote, "subjectively important to the inmate's practice of Islam." (Ford v. McGinnis 352 F. 3d 582 2d cir 2003) Isn't the right not to support murder also "subjectively important to the practice of" Christianity? It seems to me that if such a law stands over the type of meal a convicted felon receives, that same kind of rationale should be used when trying to force law abiding citizens to do something which violates their perception of human life as well.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Moving on to the Freedom of Speech aspect of the First Amendment. Congress and Obama signed a bill prohibiting the right to protest and to peaceably assemble when they concocted HR347 last March. Some reports say this bill was created in response to Occupy Wall Street. Nonetheless, the long and the short of it is, people are no longer allowed to protest in areas where there are Secret Service agents guarding any official, from Obama to candidates to even campaign managers such as David Axelrod. And who decides when a protest may or may not be allowed? The Secret Service. "Brilliant minds" such as Michael Moore defend it, basically on the basis of safety. Cooler heads understand the broader implications of such a bill and can explain the unintended consequences of them. If you think you support such legislation, consider this: What would you have wanted to believe if it had been President George W. Bush who had imposed such First Amendment limitations? Be Honest now.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yet here we are at a point in our history where we have a president who has openly stated his desire to control and limit who may or may not 'bear arms'. He wraps up his dubious good intentions in pretty little words and ideas that appeal to people who consider themselves as having a higher set of sensibilities, therefore amiable to accepting a watered down interpretation of this amendment. He has already signed several executive orders intended to usurp this right of the American people and makes it clear that he is not finished.
What I don't think these people understand is that their opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Second Amendment specifically and clearly states that ". . . the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." OK, what is the meaning of the word "infringe"? Perhaps it would be helpful to examine the meaning of the word at the time closer to when it was written in the constitution:
Origin: 1525–35; Latin infringere; to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 \-fringere, combining form of frangere
It's fine for opponents to have their opinions, as long as they are cognizant enough to understand their opinions are one thing, but the law is still the law. It is an exercise in futility to presume to know what the Founding Fathers might have written had they known the degree to which these United States would have grown and the great advancements in weaponry that have occurred since our inception.
Obama is NOT supporting the Second Amendment of the Constitution, as a matter of fact, he is fighting to have it so constricted, that everything about its original intent will be lost.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Other constitutional threats being discussed by this administration are Obama's refusal to acknowledge the principles of the 10th Amendment regarding state sovereignty. One example of that is his lawsuit against the state of Arizona taking issue with their immigration policies. Obama is also considering some convoluted interpretation of the 14th Amendment - to insure validity of public debt - as some sort of justification for worsening our debt situation by raising the debt the ceiling again. Another movement in the congress is to have term limits removed via HJ15 which will repeal the 22nd Amendment.
These are the reasons why I say Obama is a liar and his pretense of taking an oath to uphold the constitution is as much as an abomination to the office which he holds as it is flat out betrayal of the American people.