Browse By

Constitution Signs to Print and Carry to the Inauguration 1-20-09

Since the DC Metro became the only motorized way to get into the Obama Inauguration for people who can’t hire a limo or bus, its 18×18 inch sign restriction has become the de facto limit on free speech for January 20, 2009.

Ay, well. If homeland security gives you lemons, make lemonade. Here are some pro-constitution signs you can print out on an 8.5×11 sheet of card stock and carry around on on Inauguration Day. If you’re inclined, bring them with you to the southwest corner of 9th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue at our all-day Oath of Office inaugural demonstration and help make a message of support for the Constitution resonate.

17 thoughts on “Constitution Signs to Print and Carry to the Inauguration 1-20-09”

  1. qs says:

    Most liberals don’t support the 10th amendment. Fascist FDR overturned that one more or less in his run towards centralized government.

    1. Jim says:

      This liberal supports the 10th amendment, but he also reads the other amendments and articles, including the general welfare clause and the following article that specifically declares that Congress shall pass laws to ensure it. That renders the meaning of the 10th amendment not what you think it means. And the Supreme Court since long, long before FDR agrees with me.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It is clear by your sorry interpretation of the constitution and the Amendments that you Libs are communists, you want our defenses down so you can bring about every vile and wretched stench available
    to your lowlife desires. The country was not founded on that stench. You want no wire taps so you can continue with underhanded dealings in drugs and overthrowing of Government just because you do not agree. Look at California trying to overthrow the vote by the will of the people for a few. That is stupidity. what if that was done for the presidency? What is good for one is good for another you have no rime or reason for anything that makes sense. Then Kenya is going wild because they have one of their own and not a real United states citizen but had a give away birth anoucment(Not a That schlock Obama has the priciest price tag of an inauguration in a bad economy (Bling, bling!) Do I hear double standard from the Media? if it would have been MCcain the Media would have crucified him.You Liberals suck and you are going to get what you deserve( the beginnings of Communism)which is a hard slave owner with no mercy now everyone will be on the same level playing field (POOR)and only the government will be rich just like they planned.

    We have Obama a usurper who was born in Kenya who obtained a birth certificate, one that was given to newly born children even if you were born in another country one year from birth.

    1. Jim says:

      The amendments and articles referenced in the signs ARE the constitution. If you have a problem with the standards in the constitution, just come out and say so.

  3. qs says:


    Can you add in a support the 10th amendment to your list just to make me happy please?

    I don’t see why we should support some amendments but not others? If the 10th amendment doesn’t matter, then why does the first amendment.

    1. Jim says:

      Also article I, and article II, and the 24th amendment…. You didn’t talk about article II. Why do you hate article II, qs? Wait, you don’t hate article II just because you didn’t mention it?

      Feel free to use this graphic template to make your own 10th amendment sign, qs. You’re absolutely welcome to do so.

  4. r says:

    You are certainly welcome to your opinion. But do understand that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens of the US, and under any interpretation of the Constitution, the 6th Amendment is simply not applicable to Guantanamo Bay. The United States has never granted Habeas Corpas rights to those engaging against the US in any war. Foreign countries do not do so either – hense, POWs. You are not asking Obama to uphold the constitution, but to interpret it the way you want him to. He is knowledgeable enough to know that you are simply off base regarding the 6th amendment. I want the president to uphold the constitution as well, as written, yet my politics are the ones that you so intently oppose. You would do well to study the Constitution before “demonstrating” in favor of upholding it…, you may not be pleased when you get what you ask for.

    1. Truman says:

      R, that’s just not the case. The Constitution applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the US government. That’s why it’s unconstitutional, for example, to forbid foreigners working in the United States from exercising free speech.

      If the people at Guantamo were being given the rights of POWs, as in the Geneva Conventions, then that would be one thing. However, they’re not. They’ve been denied both the rights of POWs and the rights of criminal suspects. They’ve been deprived of all rights that are required to be given to prisoners by the Constitution and American law, which includes the treaties we’ve signed.

      1. r says:

        except that foreigners working in the United States are here legally, with the approval of the US and therefore under the protection of its laws. Inmates at Guantanamo, for the very reason that they are enemy combatants (or otherwise engaged against the US in war) do not receive the rights given to criminal suspects, nor should they. I think that is the point. As for POWs, I believe the US treats its enemies far more graciously than most other countries in similar situations – certainly better than those we’re fighting against. You said they were denied rights of other POWs, and that is an interesting question of international law, and one that neither of us are likely versed in… that does not change the lack of general applicability of our constitution to non-citizens. I would be interested to know how the changing situation (major differences between this war and past wars) effects the difficulties in the way we treat enemy combatants.

        1. Truman says:

          R, you totally miss the point. If someone is here illegally, how is that determined? Through the law, not just by the President’s say so. No one just gets to declare that someone has broken the law, without proof.

          You have the U.S. legal system, on the one hand, in which you have to prove an offense which allows you to subject people to imprisonment. Then, on the other hand, you have the laws of war, which are all subject to the Constitution. Those laws of war can only be put into effect if you treat the people you capture as enemy soldiers. Once this happens, international laws, agreed to by the U.S. Congress, like the Geneva Conventions, come into effect.

          It’s one or the other.

          This “enemy combatants” category is legal nonsense. It’s based on the claim by the President that he can just do whatever he wants to in the name of security. The President might as well declare that he can execute someone without a trial, for the sake of security, because he has determined that someone is a “pickle boolie”. And then, if anyone questions the right of the President to execute people without a trial, the President can use your argument: The executed, for the very reason that they are “pickle boolies” do not receive the rights given to criminal suspects. Oh, and they don’t get protection under the laws of war. See, the President just calls these people “pickle boolies”, and then it all makes sense, right?

          Another thing: It really isn’t an interesting question whether the prisoners of war at Guantanamo are entitled to the rights of prisoners of war. It’s a dull question, because they’re prisoners of war. They’re prisoners, and their prisoners taken prisoner as part of what George W. Bush calls a “war” (you do too). You shouldn’t assume that I’m not versed in this matter, because I actually am. I’ve taken the care to get versed on the subject.

          The Geneva Conventions are very clear on the subject – there is no allowance for wars changing over time.

          You know, this term “pickle boolie”… oops, I mean “enemy combatant” didn’t exist as a legal phrase until George W. Bush just made it up. He made it the freak up – and he says it can apply to American citizens too.

          Please, r. Read. Read beyond what Bill O’Reilly babbles. Go beyond the pages of the Weekly Standard. Try to find a little bit more about the laws of war than what you can find in Beetle Bailey.

          1. r says:

            Truman, I do not assume that you are either versed or not versed. In fact, my initial comment was not directed at you, but at the views expressed on this website. Neither do I accuse you of learning only from Keith Olberman or Sunday funnies…, it does not seem to flow logically. I did not get the term “enemy combatants” from George Bush; in fact, I have never heard him use the term, though I don’t doubt that he has. I was merely attempting to be clear. I do not believe that I miss the point, and no, I am not unread – I have a law degree, and have studied both the constitution and the historic treatment of the writ of habeas corpas. I don’t think this is necessarily the forum for such an in-depth discussion that goes far beyond reference to the logic (or “silliness”) of the above pictured signs. Keep in mind that George W. did not enact any of these policies without the approval of congress, democrats included. Before you place so much blame on a single individual, consider that you will need to be consistent over the next 4 (or 8) years. And before you ask me to read (as I have, a great deal), consider that it is only by reading that I have formulated the opinion that this is far more complex, and even bipartisan, than “bush made it the freak up.” Reading is a good idea, and not (a site I stumbled upon by accident) – Obama himself, however his opinions may differ from mine, is educated by the same sources dealing with the same constitution.

          2. Truman says:

            R, if you would read more of Irregular Times, you would know that we here have long (for years) criticized the Democrats in Congress, including Obama, when appropriate, for their role in the Bush Administration’s attacks on the Constitution. When I ask you to read, that’s the kind of thing that I’m talking about – and things like when you say that you’ve never heard the term “enemy combatant” from Bush. These glaring gaps in your knowledge tell me that you just haven’t paid attention to the issue, and that is in itself troubling. I don’t understand how citizens like you can have avoided the disintegration of fundamental liberties so consistently for so long. You say that you are “not unread”, but what on earth have you been reading that you haven’t read of the Bush Administration’s creation of the term “enemy combatants” as a legal category of people entitled to neither the protection of the laws of war or of criminal law?

            Don’t worry about Irregular Times being consistent – the veterans here were criticizing Bill Clinton’s unconstitutional activities back in the 1990s. They criticized Gore. They criticized Kerry. We work according to ideals here, consistently.

          3. r says:

            seems I replied to the wrong post? What’s listed as #6 is in fact a reply to your #7. Sorry about that.

  5. r says:

    sorry… next 4, or 8, years. I guess 8 ) is a smiley face.

  6. r says:

    Well, I do respect that consistency, to a certain extent. You will see many conservatives being equally critical of republican administrations and policies, if you look closely. Though I may disagree, I do not doubt your convictions.

    Interestingly, I also have noted with disappointment what I believe to be a continual disintegration of the constitution. Particularly by writing into it certain “fundamental liberties” that simply are not there. The constitution was intended as a curb on federal power, as is indicated by the fact that it applies only to the government. Note, for instance, that I do not have any constitutional freedom of speech on this forum, as against you. You are well within your rights to delete anything and everything I say, simply because you disagree with me. You do not do this, but not because the constitution grants me any rights against you; rather, because you are interested in what I have to say. This constitution is rendered virtually meaningless when added to it are positive (“substantive”) rights not actually included in the document – for instance, a right to privacy (giving rise to roe v. wade and lawrence v. texas rulings). Putting aside the question of whether one agrees or disagrees with the issues behind these rulings (namely, abortion and sodomy), they are simply wrong from a constitutional perspective, as they grant to the federal government power not explicitly granted it in the Constitution (10th Amendment). These disagreements were intended to be solved on a state level, whereby California and Texas might very well come to different conclusions. As a “right” is only something granted a person via some higher power, constitutional “fundamental rights” ought only be those expressed clearly in the constitution. States, and of course, the federal government, are always free to add to these via legislative channels (not the court system). Therefore, it seems that the most reasonable way for Obama to “uphold the constitution” would be for him to scale back the government, to put limits on his own power, to appoint justices who read from the constitution, not into it…

    Perhaps our disagreement is over what is and is not considered a “fundamental right.” I suspect that it is.

    As far as my knowledge of the Bush Administration’s (as ratified by congress) use of the term “enemy combatants…” I don’t think the political spin is necessary to an understanding of the legal meaning. “Enemy combatants” was not a term created by the Bush Administration to subvert laws of the US and of War; rather, it is a term used to describe an individual who, entirely by his own actions, neither qualifies for the laws of the US (as no non-citizen wartime “opposing party” would anyway), nor for POW status under the Geneva convention (not something “made up” by Bush).

    Regardless, the above pictured sign indicates that Guantanamo Bay is somehow unconstitutional – regardless of whether you agree or disagree with its implementation (note that GW Bush also wanted to close it down but faced the same problem that Obama will – lack of a viable alternative).

    I would be interested in reading about your interpretations of the constitution – not your political views of who may be subverting it – but your positive views of how it should be interpreted and implemented. From the looks of things, it seems that both republicans’ and democrats’ perspectives differ from your own. From there, I believe an actual “non-political” (and therefore, less emotionally charged) discussion could take place.

    1. Truman says:

      R, what’s the point of a non-political discussion? Politics is the arena of persuading people to work together to get things done. I’m not interested in abstractions when it comes to the Constitution. Freedom is emotionally charged, because people value it for emotional reasons, not just because of its rational civic value.

      1. r says:

        Sorry, that was not my point. By non-political, I meant non-partisan… whereby you should automatically, upon hearing my opinion, accuse me of being ill-read or gaining my only information from bill o’reily or beetle bailey. A quick reading of many of the comments on this site should lead you to the conclusion that such discussions are far less helpful than ones based on facts and issues, rather than upon ad-hominem attacks that are more reminiscent of children on an unregulated playground. That is all I meant.

        Tangible freedoms can only be legitimately had when a base for such freedoms is understood. I do not seek to discuss abstractions when it comes to the constitutions, but rather, to gain an intelligent and well-founded understanding of it, in order to actually discuss those freedoms and policy decisions that people are so emotional about. To do otherwise is simply unproductive fist-shaking by which neither side can reach an understanding.

        So you see the point of my interest in your positive interpretation of the constitution – when you demonstrate in front of the white house and wave flags and carry signs, it helps to know what exactly it is you are wanting people to do. For that, it helps to know how exactly it is that you would want the constitution interpreted…

        Yelling shows that you care about something. Discussing shows that you care about actually doing something about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!