This isn't really trying to start a debate - it's really meant to explain a point of view. So when you hear someone on the right saying something like this, it's where it comes from.
You might disagree that these things are happening - or even that I specifically think all of these things are happening - but I'm merely talking about perception. A lot of political discussion is in the most general terms - so like it was with Bush, some of these things are credited to Obama as the current head of the Democrat Party, even if he didn't specifically put the policy forward. But from a base, unnuanced, right-wing position of the amendments that Obama, his administration or the Democrats in Congress are trying to limit -
First Amendment - Discissions about restoring the Fairness Doctrine, introduced and adopted a resolution at the UN which limits criticism of Islam as a human rights issue, Current debate about censoring Conservative speech as "violent," co-opts the power to shut down the internet by executive order...
Second Amendment - Various gun control laws, support of local handgun bans
Third Amendment - nothing - but this article was hilarious. (Basically, Obama's repeated calls to "bring our troops home" literally means "into YOUR home, eating your food.")
Fourth Amendment - Invasive searches and full body scanning at airports, continuing and expanding Bush's wiretapping policies and moving to prevent citizens for sueing or prosecuting the Executive Branch over the wiretaps, giving the Secretary of Commerce (2009 Cybersecurity Act) ability to access any information it wants on the internet "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access,”
Fifth Amendment - Forcing BP to set up an "independent compensation fund" in the wake of the oil spill without due process, pushed for a law allowing investigators to question domestic terrorism suspects without informing them of their Miranda rights...
Sixth Amendment - Pushed to have a ruling overturned that required a suspect's lawyer to be present - if requested - prior to questioning, previous BP point, continuing and expanding Bush's "indefinite detention" policy towards potential terrorism suspects
Seventh Amendment - VARIOUS federal regulatory agencies like the FCC with the power to levy fines without a jury trial, seeking to add more regulation, particularly environmental
Eighth Amendment - Oddly, kind of the opposite, Obama and Democrats are typically TOO good on this one, almost to an extreme. The perception here is that Democrats have too high a bar over what constitutes "cruel and unusual."
Ninth Amendment - Various expansion of government scope and power, including parts of the recent Health Care Law
Tenth Amendment - Same as 9th Amendment - general growth of the power and scope of the federal government.
Eleventh Amendment - Filing a lawsuit against Arizona over their immigration law
Twelfth Amendment - This one is a Birther one... so obviously less sound than some of the others
Thirteenth Amendment - It would take a dedicated Partisan to come up with a way Obama's violated this one. Though I have heard some interesting arguments that Obamacare actually does violate this. But I think they are too much a stretch to be taken seriously.
Fourteenth Amendment - The big time Birther argument. Same as before.
Fifteenth Amendment - Dismissing the lawsuit against the Black Panthers who were participating in voter intimidation during the 2008 election
Sixteenth Amendment - Another "too good" - Right-wingers think Obama's too fond of this one.
Gonna stop here - mostly because I have actual work to do. But I think that the idea is there.
YES, I absolutely know that Bush wasn't totally innocent of this, and I even cited him a couple times. But as I've pointed out in other arguments, that is one of the reasons the Tea Party exists... they were fed up with the GOP doing this stuff too.
Anyway - some of these are more nebulous and farfetched than others, and yes - each one could be debated for hours whether or not they actually constitute a violation of the Constitution.
My point is - from the perception of a "small government" conservative or libertarian, someone who would see the government falling in the grey area (as many of these things do) as a violation... Yeah, it's kind of easy to see why some people would think that Obama and the Democrats are "trying to take our rights away." There are very few Amendments, particularly in the first ten, that there isn't some policy or law active or in the works that might have a legit constitutional challenge.
Bush comes into play here in the "political football" aspect of the debate because while leftists often said that Bush treated the Constitution "like toilet paper," you don't see the same criticism of Obama from them, even though he's pretty well continued all of the questionable Bush policies, and added more to them. Of course, the same would be true were the tables reversed - I've seen many right-wingers complain about Obama doing things that they defended Bush over. Nature of the game, sadly.
So anyway - when you hear "Obama's trying to take our rights away!" That is where it comes from.
Just curious but when has obama evwer discussed restoring the fairness doctrine?
As I mentioned in the preface, I was talking about perception. Like Bush, Obama is often credited with things other Democrats in power do, because he is the leader of the Party now.
Restoring the Fairness Doctrine was a popular topic during the Presidential Election, and it has popped up again several times. Obama did come out against restoring the Fairness Doctrine during the election (but he did propose some other regulation I was personally not fond of).
So because it was popular with some prominant Democrats in Congress, it leads to "Obama wants ___." Obama is the face of the Democrat Party, so if many Democrats want something, it becomes "Obama wants ____"
I don't claim it is accurate or fair, but it is the way our political discourse has worked since I can remember.
Ahh, I see. I know a few democrats are in favor of it, but I would say pretty far from the majority.
I understand that all of these perceptions exists. I just don't know where a lot of them come from. Basically we have a false perception resting on other false perceptions.
It gets a bit frustrating to trace. Like the fact so many people don't realize that under Obama taxes have been lower. Or that so many people think that he instituted the bailouts and that it was a party issue. To be fair Obama did support them, but the votes were divided in both parites.
See, I think the bit about Obama's "lower taxes" was a great deal of spin. Obama has really done very little directly with taxes - so far. He supported instituting a VAT tax, which is an increase on everyone, but he's taken very little action on the tax front since he came into office.
He was opposed to renewing the Bush Tax cuts initially. He eventually agreed with part of them, because of the anger, but he did fight until the bitter end against the upper income brackets. And even with his recent extension, the estate tax was partly restored, and in 2 years we are going to have the debate all over again.
But the tax issue is largely misunderstood as well. Tea Party people in particular aren't protesting the current taxes so much (but they don't like those either), it is more a protest of the rapid growth of the federal budget and the deficit. The increased spending isn't being paid for, these are people who believe a larger government budget equals retarded economic growth, and rightly see that eventually, someone is going to have to pay for all of the borrowing, and that means more taxes.
Obama hasn't gone for massive tax increases very hard, outside resisting the Bush Tax Cuts expiring. But the vigor with which he supports spending proposals means that his actions are going to eventually result in taxes.
Again, the points are debatable, but that is where the perception comes from.
Oh, I am not saying he was in favor of lower taxes for everyone, but people protested in 2009 despite the fact that there taxes had gone down. they were complaining that they went up, not that they were about to.
I know he kept the tax cuts in a compromise, one i don't approve of for the the record.
What drives me crazy last time we were in a position to pay back borrowed money, we instead cut taxes. Alot of people seem to think its the right move for all season. Surplus? Cut taxes. Deficit Cut Taxes.
I think a lot of people on the progressive side think its just a little too convenient that over spending was suddenly a huge issue for conservative as soon as thier guy was out. Thats where perceptions that the right are only complaining because its Obama come from. Well that and the constant questioning of his religion, citizenship and even his reports of Representative Gifford blinking.
I think a lot of people on the progressive side think its just a little too convenient that over spending was suddenly a huge issue for conservative as soon as thier guy was out. Thats where perceptions that the right are only complaining because its Obama come from.
That perception isn't wrong. It's a side effect of football politics. We have an environment now where you CAN'T point to your guy as wrong, or else it appears you are agreeing with the other side.
This finally started to break for the right a little when GOP candidates were actually responding to criticism by saying "Yeah, I spend a little too much, but the Democrat will be worse!!!" I think that drives a lot of the discussion on both sides. The opponents are painted as so universally bad that you don't want to oppose your own guy at all. You saw that with some of Bush's programs like Prescription Drug and his push for Amnesty, which Democrats should have loved but they always found something to blast him about. Happens on both sides.
To be fair, I don't think President Obama's religion or citizenship are ever questioned seriously anymore by mainstream Republicans. Seriously at least. Limbaugh doesn't even talk about them anymore.
I tell you what, for those who are unhappy with Obama I have a deal for them, you give us Obama to our Prime-minister's place, we give you our PM "Pinocrates" to Obama's place, in less than a year, you'll be demanding Obama back, and deporting our PM back to us and placing him under the restriction of returning to the US