McCain takes credit for GI bill ...

[Blarch]

that he opposed...and didn't show up to vote for.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_takes_credit_for_Gi_bill_0628.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. WTF, not only did he fight this bill, he scraped up a weaker alternative.

[lisa58]

2. He's really sold his soul, hasn't he?

[cbc5g]

3. It's really sickening, especially if no one calls him out on it in the media

[blondeatlast]

5. Only two senators abstained from this, Kennedy and McSame.

One was campaigning, the other was recovering from brain surgery...

[still_one]

4. I hope our 527s really blast this flip-flopping along with the others that he has done /nt

[jody]

6. I agree McCain's actions are reprehensible re GI Bill but don't forget that Obama voted Nay on a

bill recognizing the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, the issue decided by SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller.

Senate bill 397 passed the Senate 65 – 31 and passed the House 283 – 144. The bill said:

QUOTE
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
UNQUOTE

The bill was signed 26 Oct 05 and became Public Law No: 109-092.

IMO all political candidates have votes on their record that they would change if they had perfect hindsight.

[Blarch]

7. to be honest.

I don't think the constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms.

[jody]

9. I agree, the Constitution does not give any inalienable right. PA and VT declared that such rights

are natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable in their constitutions, PA (1776) and VT (1777).

Most states recognize inalienable rights in their constitutions.

SCOTUS said in Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Nine state constitutions prohibit state legislatures from voting on laws to eliminate inalienable rights, AL, AR, KY, LA, MI, ND, OH, PA, and TX.

[cbc5g]

8. The courts interpreting the Constitution decide those issues, not Congress.

Look at the timing of the bill...a year before the 2006 senate elections. I think we know why it was brought up. It was brought up by the same guy trying to bring up the defense of marriage bullshit act now to. Larry Craig...

[jody]

11. My point is one should be careful in throwing rocks because they can ricochet back. n/t

[Blarch]

12. regardless.

Habeas Corpus is a RIGHT ...if you kill 100 people on Sunday morning you will STILL have Habeas Corpus.

Gun ownership is a privilege ...just like driving ...it can be taken away.

[jody]

13. Wrong, Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a right as SCOTUS said last week in D.C. v. Heller.

Suggest you read the decision at, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[tyedyeto]

14. WTF does that have to do with McShame's flip-flop?

The OP is about the GI Bill, not about gun control.

MsShame has been opposed to every GI/VA Bill that has come before the Senate in recent years. Do not confuse anyone with any 2nd Amendment arguements you may have.

[jody]

15. You need to read more carefully. Have a nice evening. n/t

[tyedyeto]

16. No, you read the OP again

It has nothing to do with this week's gun control decision by the SC.

You took the OP off topic.

[jody]

17. The OP was about McCain flip flopping on an the VA bill issue and I pointed out that Obama had also

flip flopped on the RKBA issue.

The OP was about McCain changing position just as I pointed out Obama had changed position.

Have a nice evening, :hi:

[tyedyeto]

18. So, by taking the OP off topic, you are trying to accomplish what?

Obama has not changed his position of the bill in question.





Hillary troll, I presume.

[jody]

19. I did not take the OP off topic. I repeat, the OP raised two issues, one specifically Vet benefits

and the other a candidate's voting or not voting on a bill and later changing their position on a part of that bill.

The fact as I showed in #6 is Obama voted against Senate bill 397 that said "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms" but now Obama says "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms"

Have a nice day, :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

10. Who cares what COMM says?

COM = Crazy Old Man McCain.