The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.This takes us back to the unconstrained vision thing.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
QotD: The Irreconcilable Differences edition.
From Walter Williams:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Just like the Supreme Court, members of Congress and the President are sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution. All three branches have violated their oaths, betrayed the People, and trampled the letter and meaning of the Constitution.
All of them are guilty.
When the earth was young and I was in grad skul, Professor Barnett told us that it could all be turned around overnight if only the Supremes stopped giving legislation a presumption of Constitutionality.
Give what has been going on in Congress over the years, an irrebuttal presumption of Unconstitutionality is called for.
And then there's that House of Repeal idea . . .
Ooouuuwwwwooooo *Wookie yell*
Shootin' Buddy
Yup.
And the natives are getting restless.
I've finally been seeing some people openly saying the same thing I've been saying, Civil War, part II.
Civil Wahr? I say, I say. You stow that there cannon, sir, field piece, I say. :-)
Ummm, let's not commit any Treason, but let's all go vote in November!
How about 1994, part II? Let's just hope we don't get stuck with a Speaker of the House with feet of clay that liked to go to parties in Georgetown!
Shootin' Buddy
Actualy, it would be Civil War, part III (part IV, if you live in Maryland).
Except of course, the only actual civil wars in that list would be 1644-1660 (Maryland's contribution to the English Civil War) and 201? - 201? (this hypothetical new civil war).
The other two were rebellions by secessionists. Neither Washington's "Retreat to Victory Tour" of 1776 - 1783 nor the conflist that included Sherman's 1864 Rural Renewal Project technically count as civil wars, as the insurrectionists weren't trying to rule the whole nation -- they were trying to have THEIR little section free of the larger polity.
As Clavell pointed out (in the person of John Blackthorne) in Shogun, you have the right of rebellion...
...provided you win.
"The other two were rebellions by secessionists. Neither Washington's "Retreat to Victory Tour" of 1776 - 1783 nor the conflist that included Sherman's 1864 Rural Renewal Project technically count as civil wars, as the insurrectionists weren't trying to rule the whole nation -- they were trying to have THEIR little section free of the larger polity."
Remember, rebellious Virginian slave owners were only cool in the 18th Century!
Shootin' Buddy,
Let me be clear, CWII is the last thing I really want to see.
I'd far prefer one of several other scenarios play out, even before, and not necessarily instead of, what's been mentioned.
I just don't see the boat righting itself, at all. We are watching it, instead, being run straight into even rougher seas, all the while the passengers are willfully engaging in active ballast movement in an effort at capsizing the vessel.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I'd rather watch on C-Span as several hundred members of our government are tried for crimes against the country. Take your pick on the charges, they seem to know no bounds when it comes to breaking the law, I say we turn around and throw whatever we want at them.
I don't want to hear any crap about how the members of Congress supposedly have some sort of "immunity" when they are enacting legislation. That kind of thinking is exactly WHY those assholes get away with murder.
Public displays of the hooligans being thrown into the big house is precisely the kind of thing we need.
I don't want to hear any crap about how the members of Congress supposedly have some sort of "immunity" when they are enacting legislation. That kind of thinking is exactly WHY those assholes get away with murder.
Article I, Section 6: They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Unless you want to claim that their votes were the crimes, you're treading on very thin ice in prosecuting them. One who proposes to hold people accountable for breaking the rules does not start from a strong position when he disregards (or at least skirts) the rules for the purpose of arranging the prosecution.
"...Unless you want to claim that their votes were the crimes, you're treading on very thin ice in prosecuting them...."
dave,
Get this straight; THEY are the ones who've been treading on the thin ice, NOT ME, and they are the ones who've distorted and shredded the manual by which they've been assigned the rules to play by.
Do you understand?
I'll NOT HAVE ANY BIT OF TRUCK WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. If the perpetrators of the largest socialist takeover and sell-out of the country do not have to play by the rules, then THEY CAN NOT HIDE BEHIND THOSE SAME RULES THAT THEY'VE BEEN COMPLICIT WITH DESTROYING.
Get it?
One rule for thee, another for me.
Time to end it.
Oh, and if you disagree with this, you are simply another in a long line who've been helping the ship sink.
BRAVO!!!!! My thoughts exactly, except for the part about the big house. I want to see every lamp pole in DC occupied, until the bones fall away from each other. Then collect the bones, put them in molds, to cast chairs and desks with clear plastic, to replace all the furniture that the legislature and Supreme Court uses. Maybe that reminder would tend to discourage future assaults on the Constitution.
Post a Comment