Guess Who Didn’t Pay Attention in Junior High Civics
It looks like everyone’s favorite MSNBC liberal, Chris “Tingly-Leg” Matthews, is pissed. It seems as if he doesn’t think the current POTUS is getting proper respect.
And maybe he’s right. After all, the Constitution does say that you can’t challenge the President – right?
Matthews: “I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the President of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance . . . .’”
Um, no. That’s not what the Constitution says at all. I’m thinking you’re the one who doesn’t understand the Constitution.
He’s the US President, Chrissy-Poo. He’s not royalty ruling by Divine Right or some absolute dictator whose whose words are beyond question or challenge.
The Constitution gives the POTUS no special pass on following the law, or on being challenged. If someone thinks he is wrong, the POTUS can indeed be challenged – publicly, and directly.
Further: other than selected members of the military, no one is legally obligated to treat the POTUS with any more or less respect than they treat any other person. Only commissioned officers of the US military are bound by law (the UCMJ) to treat selected Federal and State officials with a degree of respect in their public statements and actions. That’s it.
So long as they don’t otherwise violate the law, everyone else can say what they wish about the POTUS – or to him, if they have the opportunity. They’re not legally bound to give the POTUS any more respect than anyone else they know. If they want to publicly challenge the POTUS – or call him a liar to his face – that’s perfectly legal.
It’s called “Freedom of Speech”, Chrissy-Poo. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
You can get remedial civics education from any number of sources, Matthews. You might want to check into it.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit, Liberals suck
Well the offic DOES shield the president somewhat from criminal proceedings in that he must be convicted by the legislature. A president must be removed from office before he can go to jail
Which should have happened two years ago.
Might be able to find some refresher for free…
http://gizmodo.com/5952869/get-a-liberal-arts-education-for-free-on-the-internet
CTIC(SG)
Chrissy-poo is the proto-type ultra, brain dead, uber liberal. I’m not calling him a nazi but he has that kinda mind set. Follow the fuhrer blindly, without question. According to this type, comrade banana can do no wrong. I beg to differ!
Yat…Chrissy did in fact work for the WH under the Carter administration, so that should tell you quite a bit right there.
And when Bush was in office, how much “respect” did he actually get from liberals and the media? Even on the floor of Congress they were degrading him. But no mention of that of course. Typical continuation of polarization of the US and hypocrisy of “you can’t say that about my guy, but I can say and do anything I want against the other guy because he’s not in my party.”
I remember in the 90s when Clinton was in office and the military had to “remind” Commissioned Officers of their oath because they were saying and doing disrespectful actions / commentary against the President. Even was a JAG episode against it. And with that, I leave you with the image of Catherine Bell, which you already had in your head as a happy ending to my ramblings. You’re welcome.
What? You guys want Chris Matthews to wise up on the Constitution?
No! Never! It’s a lot easier and a lot more fun to mock him when he says these ridiculous things.
Let’s just remember, these are not the days of the Kennedy administration, when Jack Kennedy held his own press conferences and made wise-cracks on a regular basis.
When a woman reporter asked him, “Mr. President, I would like to know when you’re going to do something for women”, he answered “I thought I already had.”
Actually, in all fairness to Matthews, I believe he just got ahead of himself. He knew that if obama wins re-election, the plan is to amend the Constitution both to prohibit negative comments directed to the Executive Branch and to require that the Chief Executive:
1) Never be looked at directly;
2) Be addressed as Your Eminence or Mr. or Madam President, as applicable; and
3) Never be touched without invitation or spoken to without being spoken to first by the Chief Executive or his/her designee.
Furthermore, Matthews also understood that the plan calls for Chief Executive to issue an Executive Order to effect these changes while the amendment process is pending and that the Executive Order will remain if the amendment fails. So, you see, Matthews was not all that wrong; he just got ahead of himself a little.
Sparky, I didn’t know that. Now I think I understand “Pizzaplicity”!?
That is part of the UCMJ and includes enlisted pissants who think they know everything. Especially those who never went to Ranger training.
@10. Thanks, ex AF. Now, can anyone tell me what he or she just tried to say in cmt 10?
May I just say that I am hoping that the handle “ex AF” indicates an inability to participate in the actual USAF. I know, I know, every branch has it’s share of morons, and this could be one of ours. But, I can absolutely attest that the usual mental standards within the USAF far exceed what we have observed coming from this person claiming a former affiliation with the branch of service I proudly claim. Unless it is not the United States Air Force that it is claiming. Hmmm.
I think he’s trying to show that even those who did PhD work occasionally blow it out their . . . ear, 2-17 AirCav. Here, in two different ways.
First, he obviously thinks Jonn wrote the article above, and is trying to take issue with Jonn for being an Ranger without having a Ranger Tab. So much for his/her attention to detail – Jonn didn’t write the article above.
Second, he/she obviously doesn’t bother to read references – even when they’re handed to him/her on a silver platter. Had he/she bothered to read the Air University source I linked in the above article, he/he would have seen that the prohibition on use of “contemptuous words” towards specified elective and appointive officials in Article 88 of the UCMJ is indeed applicable to commissioned officers only. Perhaps he was confusing that with the Hatch Act and DoD regulatory prohibitions on partisan political activity while in uniform, when acting in an official capacity, or while using government resources – which do apply equally to officers and enlisted personnel.
Indeed, Articles 88, 106a (Espionage), and 112a (Controlled Substances) appear to be the only Punitive Articles of the UCMJ that even mention the POTUS. And the latter two do so in a context that say the POTUS can prescribe clarification regarding the offense vice being the subject of the article itself.
10,
As one former AF guy to a self-proclaimed “Ex AF”, let me implore you to actually read the article next time. There was no mention whatsoever of military personnel. Neither Mitt Romney nor Chris Matthews are under the purview of the UCMJ. You may now unbunch your knickers, that is all.
Above, I was referring to the original source document and Chris Matthews’ retarded comments. As far as this does pertain to military folks, I always understood that such actions of enlisted folk were largely an Article 134 issue if/when the UCMJ came into play. My understanding pretty much means shit when it comes to such things, so I’ll pay close attention to any corrections.
[…] Matthews must be so proud – I understand he endorses this kind of thing. I wonder when he plans to emigrate to Egypt and put his ass where his sentiments are. (Yeah, […]