Obama changes (insert) amendment???

[violiav]

I'm trying to figure out where this is coming from. My boyfriend came home just a short while ago and said,"Did you know Obama changed the 4th amendment to take away due process from war criminals?"

Me: ???

Him: Goes to poo without explaining.

So I spend the next 30 or so minutes googling constitutional law, etc. Zip. Not a thing.
He gets back and I let him know that the 4th is search and seizure, not due process. Due process is the 5th? Nope no changes there either. Some case law, but nothing having to do with war criminals.

He tells me he heard it from a few people, maybe it was a bill?

I look.We both look. Nothing really, except something about Guantanamo Bay.
I think, well maybe it was an "executive order". I have more luck. There was one issued last year saying war criminals weren't allowed in the country.

That's still a far cry from a change to the f-ing constitution. What puzzles me is why does a bunch of right wing Texans care that some war criminals can't get into the country?
---------------------------------


Another one I heard, this time from 11 year old boy. I'm driving him back to his moms and he tells me that he wishes Romney had won because Obama wanted to "take away our guns".

Me:???!!!

I give him a brief lesson on the second amendment and how several gun laws actually vary from state to state. Not to mention how impossible in this day and age it would be to amend the constitution repealing the 2nd amendment.

Where the hell are people getting this stuff?

[Nekojin]

The majority of the populace has only a tenuous understanding of law, even the Constitution. As sad as this is to say, that's just the way that it is - there's just too much information available to follow it all. And there's only enough interest to follow a few things, for most people.

Where am I going with this? Well, some people have enough interest to be aware of something, but not enough interest to deeply research it. They hear a rumor about something - like, say, the "due process removal" rumor - they half-remember it, and try to rebuild what they heard from their faulty memory. They're playing Telephone with themselves. And they pass on their half-remembered half-rumor to others.

As far as the 11-year-old is concerned, he's just repeating what his parents (or other adults that he respects) are telling him, because he doesn't have the capacity to fully understand (and yes, I know some 11-year-olds will be outraged at that declaration). So he parrots what they're telling him, because he trusts them to tell him the truth. When they're wrong, it doesn't matter - he's internalizing it. After several years of hearing it, the kid has fully internalized the lie, and he believes it completely - so completely, that he doesn't feel the NEED to confirm it. It's gone beyond "something my Uncle told me," and transformed into Truth. Never mind that it's wrong.

[HYHYBT]

The "take away our guns" one is reasonably (or, rather, UNreasonably) popular. The idea, apparently, is that Obama spent his entire first term *not* trying to get gun control laws passed specifically so that he could do it first thing in his second term, or something like that.

As for the first one... I'm amazed anyone in this country could reach adulthood without enough of a grasp of things to know that altering the constitution is a big deal and not something a president could just go and do on his own, even if they don't remember the way it does work. That's one of those things that's taught *every year* in social studies/history/government type classes from elementary school on up.

[Gravekeeper]

I find it frankly alarming how many people I see down there furiously masturbating to the Constitution that can't zip it up long enough to actually read the damn thing. >.>

[Greenday]

The majority of the populace has only a tenuous understanding of law, even the Constitution. As sad as this is to say, that's just the way that it is - there's just too much information available to follow it all. And there's only enough interest to follow a few things, for most people.

I disagree. I think most people are just too lazy to actually look up relevant information.

[Mr. Anubite]

I disagree. I think most people are just too lazy to actually look up relevant information.

That is certainly true. Not to mention, the only source of news and political commentary for many people is horribly skewed.

[Andara Bledin]

While it's certainly true that most people just don't care enough to really know what's going on (not laziness so much as apathy, I suspect), there is also more information flowing over the airwaves that nobody could follow all of it.

Unfortunately, most people hear the first thing, make their decision based on that, and won't change their minds for anything, even if they're told that the first thing they heard was a deliberate lie to trick them into making a decision. >_<

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I disagree. I think most people are just too lazy to actually look up relevant information.

Ah, but they have a response to that. They think Obama/Liberals control virtually all the media (Except Fox News and whatever radio network Rush Limbaugh is on) and therefore they believe that the so-called "Liberal" mainstream media is working day and night to suppress or otherwise misrepresent the truth about what is REALLY going on.

Therefore, the only way you can find out is by looking at conservative sources like Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, Atlas Shrugs, World Net Daily, National Review and so on and so forth.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Therefore, the only way you can find out is by looking at conservative sources like Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, Atlas Shrugs, World Net Daily, National Review and so on and so forth.

This is why I wish we had the same strict (in a good way) law that Canadalandia has. "You want to be considered news? NO LYING. EVER."

[Andara Bledin]

I'm of the opinion that if you have "news" in your title and you're not obviously a fictional program, then you'd better tell the truth or you'll be hit with breaking truth in advertising laws.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Sadly, that's now how case law has fallen out in the US. Fox News was sued in court, and after an appeal, effectively won the right to lie on the air. The appelate judges ruled that the FCC rules against news programs lying is merely a policy, not actually a law, and therefore Fox isn't violating any laws.

So, the laws need to be changed before we can get past this culture of news agencies that don't really tell the public what's actually going on.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

So, the laws need to be changed before we can get past this culture of news agencies that don't really tell the public what's actually going on.

Unfortunately, until we minimize or remove the influence that corporations, lobbyists, and special interest groups have on our government... it's not going to happen. :/

[Tanasi]

I'm trying to figure out where this is coming from. My boyfriend came home just a short while ago and said,"Did you know Obama changed the 4th amendment to take away due process from war criminals?"

Me: ???

Him: Goes to poo without explaining.

So I spend the next 30 or so minutes googling constitutional law, etc. Zip. Not a thing.
He gets back and I let him know that the 4th is search and seizure, not due process. Due process is the 5th? Nope no changes there either. Some case law, but nothing having to do with war criminals.

He tells me he heard it from a few people, maybe it was a bill?

I look.We both look. Nothing really, except something about Guantanamo Bay.
I think, well maybe it was an "executive order". I have more luck. There was one issued last year saying war criminals weren't allowed in the country.

That's still a far cry from a change to the f-ing constitution. What puzzles me is why does a bunch of right wing Texans care that some war criminals can't get into the country?
---------------------------------


Another one I heard, this time from 11 year old boy. I'm driving him back to his moms and he tells me that he wishes Romney had won because Obama wanted to "take away our guns".

Me:???!!!

I give him a brief lesson on the second amendment and how several gun laws actually vary from state to state. Not to mention how impossible in this day and age it would be to amend the constitution repealing the 2nd amendment.

Where the hell are people getting this stuff?

Please read this I do believe the word ban is mentioned. Obama also said in an interview that he would like to further control handguns.

He's been encouraged to support the permanent reinstatement of the Brady Gun bill. The Brady bill was a failure at best.
His administration has also indicated they will support and try to implement the UN Small Arms treaty.

[Nekojin]

Please read this I do believe the word ban is mentioned.

Only in relations to the Assault Weapons Ban, not in any other context.

Obama also said in an interview that he would like to further control handguns.

When?

He's been encouraged to support the permanent reinstatement of the Brady Gun bill. The Brady bill was a failure at best.

Encouraged by who? There's lots of people "encouraging" the President to do all sorts of things all over the place, rational and wackjob. I agree that the Brady Bill was useless; most people who have any understanding of weaponry do understand that.

His administration has also indicated they will support and try to implement the UN Small Arms treaty.

For the US to be bound by an international Treaty, not only does the President have to sign on to the Treaty, but the Senate has to ratify it with a 2/3 supermajority. That's not something that happens easily.

[Panacea]

I do believe the word ban is mentioned. Obama also said in an interview that he would like to further control handguns.

He's been encouraged to support the permanent reinstatement of the Brady Gun bill. The Brady bill was a failure at best.
His administration has also indicated they will support and try to implement the UN Small Arms treaty.

The Supreme Court has already said that the government can set reasonable limits on gun ownership, to include things like background checks, and restricting certain types of weapons. But that power isn't unlimited; very restrictive hand gun laws in DC and Chicago were tossed out and Obama was fine with it. I have not heard him say he wants to get into gun control; where did you hear this? What interview? When?

The only ban is the assault weapons ban, which had its problems but served a useful purpose. There really isn't a need for citizens to own assault weapons unless they are collectors.

For the US to be bound by an international Treaty, not only does the President have to sign on to the Treaty, but the Senate has to ratify it with a 2/3 supermajority. That's not something that happens easily.

It won't happen at all with this Congress. Even if gun control advocates could get 60 votes to override a filibuster, they'd never get 67 to get a supermajority.

As for Obama changing the Constitution:

Yes, due process is the 5th, not 4th amendment. 4th amendment is search and seizure, as noted.

Congress has to vote a proposed amendment, which would have to pass both House and Senate. Then it has to be ratified by the legislatures of 2/3rds of the states within a specific time frame to amend the Constitution. This is very, very rare. The last time it was done was in 1992 . . . on a proposal two hundred years old. Last time before that was 1971.

Obama can't change the Constitution willy nilly. He can enact some policies through Presidential Orders, but they only affect the operations of the federal government, not the states. They can be tossed out by a subsequent President, so they are not permanent.

Obama did this by putting the provisions of the DREAM Act as an Executive Order. But the states don't have to follow it, which could create some interesting conflicts in places like Arizona that have tough new immigration laws.