Wednesday, May 27, 2009

BY ILLEGALLY SEIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY, OBAMA HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE

THE US CONSTITUTION:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • BY CLOSING CHRYSLER DEALERSHIPS BECAUSE THEY ARE (A) OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONATED TO THE GOP, OR ARE (B) LOCATED IN "RED COUNTIES", OR ARE (C) LOCATED IN GOP CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OBAMA VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT - AND DID SO FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
  • THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD DEMAND COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY AND SUBPOENA ALL DOCUMENTS REGARDING DEALERSHIP "CLOSURES" - INCLUDING DOCUMENTS GENERATED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE, RATNER, THE WHITE HOUSE AND OBAMA.
  • AND - BECAUSE HOLDER CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO INVERTOGATE THIS - IT'S TIME FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE IS WHAT MUGABE DID TO WHITE FARMERS IN ZIMBABWE, WHAT CASTRO DID IN CUBA, AND WHAT CHAVEZ IS DOING IN VENEZUELA.

IT IS SOCIALISM, AND MUST BE STOPPED.
at

2 comments:

  1. Layer Seven9:52 PM

    I think you are correct; abrogation of private contracts does constitute unreasonable seizure; however at lease one more pertinent law is Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3, which prohibits impairment of contracts.

    However, one must recognize that America is no longer a nation of laws; we are a nation of someone's empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pastorius12:19 PM

    The only problem is, as I understand it, Chrysler/Obama are simply allowing their contracts to expire with said dealers.

    Does that violate the Bill of Attainder rule, or the ex-post facto rule in Article I, Section 9?

    I can't see that it does.

    However, there is Article I, Section 9, paragraph 6, which says:

    "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

    A "Living Constitutionalist" might interpret that to mean, more broadly, that the government can not grant or deny privileges to any particular business, or group of businesses.

    Thinking out of my ass here.

    :)

    ReplyDelete