Video: Soldier explains constitutional republic to cheering audience
posted at 8:48 am on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Honestly, in almost six years of blogging, rarely have I seen anyone pack as much letter-perfect constitutional instruction as one soldier did at an ObamaCare townhall/protest yesterday in St. Louis. It doesn’t surprise me at all that a young soldier would understand the concepts and the historical context of the Constitution. It surprises me that he has to explain it to the people in Congress:
Actually, since the current generation of Senators and Representatives are too busy to read the legislation in front of them, the need to explain this is sadly, sadly unsurprising. (via lamblock on Twitter)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Just because a politician promises something, doesn’t mean it will come to pass.
The question is whether our Republic will survive if politicians can loot the treasury and buy votes.
Or are you trying to pretend that politicians have Never promised goodies to in exchange for votes?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Short answer – the one who is right. But this is like asking “If two people are fighting, which one should be punished?” The one who started it, of course. A detailed answer cannot be provided to a vague question. If you are really interested, you won’t find the answers debating in blog comments. But I can and have directed you to resources where you can find the answers you want.
JohnJ on July 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Not true. The powers of the President in foreign affairs was not “hammered out” absolutely not ratified with any kind of clarity. You pay people to say stuff like that? No wonder our educational system is so terrible these days.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Simply a way of saying that if there’s a dispute over a law, one doesn’t go back to the legislature to resolve it. Why? Because it would give the legislature dictatorial powers.
The judiciary is the arbiter between the citizens’ rights – as enumerated in the Constitution, the “fundamental law” – and the legislature’s powers. If the legislative actions infringe on the citizens’ constitutional rights, the judiciary’s enumerated power is to find the legislature’s actions invalid…not to suggest or create alternatives in the form of rights for the people or laws of the land.
Here’s a quote from Hamilton I find far more worthy of the modern American’s attention…especially considering the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate that’s in power:
rvastar on July 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
No, I spoke too soon. *This* is the LOL of the day. Great, of course when the framers disagreed after the fact, they both thought they were right, and this doesn’t really help us in terms of interpreting current constitutional issues.
“The one who is right.” Unbelievable.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Significant leeway was granted, admittedly, but the hammer was brought down with the requirement that the senate approve – that is where we assert our constitutional sovereignty.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
No, I’d say that that’s pretty much what elections are all about, and that’s what they’ve always been about. Politicians promise you things, and you vote for the ones who promise you the things you like (or the one you believe/believe more).
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
You’ve convinced me. You are an idiot.
JohnJ on July 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Welcome to the party. I was convinced almost at the outset….but foolishly held onto hope.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Hey Rino,
Your arguments are fallacious at best…do you have a foot nailed to the floor?
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Oh yeah? How much leeway? I’ll check in the FP but I’m pretty familiar with them and I don’t think it says anything about how much leeway the President should be granted in foreign policy and when they need to get the legislature involved.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Sapwolf on July 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I’m with LimeyGeek. Let the record show that the Constitution worked and works magnificently without Socialist revisionism.
I would support rescinding legislation that is not Constitutionally founded, just as I would assert that legal precedence that alters the Constitution has in chronology no precedence to alter the Constitution.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Nope, gotta go, actually. But before I do can you tell me how my arguments are fallacious?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I sincerely hope you never refer to yourself as an “American”. You are nothing of the sort. To misrepresent yourself as such is an insult to everything our Founders stood for.
Bugger off, you ignorant wretch.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That is, the Constitution predates revisions.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.
So whats to stop a politician from looting the treasury to maintain power?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
He’s subclass the “intelligent” roach ridiculed over the weekend at Ace/Spades.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The United States Constitution has been called – and rightfully so – “a marvel of concision.” There is no way any literate person could possibly have the slightest difficulty understanding it. In fact, that is the whole POINT of a constitution; laws in a free society comprise absolutely nothing but codified common sense.
The idea that a free people need a Council of Elders somewhere to tell us what governmental powers were “secretly” hidden in a magical document isn’t just moronic.
And liberals aren’t JUST stupid. If that were the case, their ‘re-interpretations’ would be random. They’d be as likely to claim that the Constitution tells us all to wear Spam on our heads every alternate Tuesday as they are to claim that half of the words in the Commerce Clause were typos.
To any free-thinking person, the liberal desire for centralized control seems utterly inexplicable. But it’s the opposite. Nothing about liberalism will ever be in the least bit complicated; it’s not hard to understand; it’s hard to ACCEPT. Liberalism is nothing but the political expression of human nature at its most base.
Self-governance is a very, very unusual state of affairs. In the grand scheme of things it’s brand-spanking new, and so of course a great many people find it terrifying. For the vast majority of human history, people have been governed from above – with civilizations surviving only because of an all-consuming desire to defer to a central authority figure. And that overwhelming urge for mindless submission will always be buried in our hindbrains.
Conservatives live a very unnatural existance, and that’s a good thing. We have all – pretty much by definition – PERSONALLY won the fight against our our baser instincts. But it will never be enough for us to be satisfied with that. The enemies of reason don’t just exist outside our borders. And the domestic barbarians are no longer merely an amusing nuisance — they’ve taken over the parapets. The time to act was a long time ago, but the second-best time is always right now.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Wolftech, there’s a perfect quote that will sum up your quite accurate observation…and surprisingly, it comes from a Leftist, though he is the rarest of the breed – i.e. intectually honest.
rvastar on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
well..I cant find it. Im not a twitterer, dont want to be. I’ll find it elsewhere.
becki51758 on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
A+ sir :)
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Nice. I’m stealing that.
JohnJ on July 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM
“tell me how my arguments are fallacious”
Beneath the rino, above the roach to read the dictionary.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The time to act was a long time ago, but the second-best time is always right now.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I’ll second the motion. Better now than never.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I was so proud of this young man when I heard him speak at this meeting in St. Louis–along with about 40 others who spoke against ObamaCare. He was extremely well-spoken and so were the other people who lined up to the microphone to have thier say. The questions on the “against” side were thoughtful and informed. Four people asking questions had actually read the entire bill.
The crowd of about 1,000 (McCaskill’s office said she was expecting about a couple dozen) was fired up, angry, vocal, passionate–much more so than the tea parties I’ve attended. My take on it is, the entire Congress is going to get a bellyfull during their August recess.
Senator Claire McCaskill will be meeting with her contituents here in St. Louis on Aug. 7. We plan to make it a memorable experience for her.
labwriter on July 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM
rvastar on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Another way of saying that:
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM
McCaskill defeated in 2012. I like that idea. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? :)
NathanG on July 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Our last hope is that when the time comes that Ogabe and his thugs abandon political process and try to seize power absolutely, there will be many, many more men and women in the military who are as informed and passionate about the Constitution as this young man.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Well said, young man!
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Yep. Compassionate conservatism conflates with our charity toward humanity that we’re wisely unwilling to surgically excise from our nature, particularly not for convenient comfort sake.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Back on target!
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM
I used to live in Missouri. It was reliably Republican in those days.
What changed? Two GOP Senators who ran almost entirely on “cultural” issues and wore their religion on their sleeves. McCaskill came into office because of a visceral disgust on the part of moderate voters for John Ashcroft and Jim Talent, who waved the flag of their fundamentalism.
I know I’ll take a lot of flak for this, but the idea that culture warriors were ever the engine of the GOP is fallacious. Until the rise of the Moral Majority, the GOP ran on sound economic stewardship, reducing the growth of government and national defense.
During the Reagan years, the Moral Majority movement motivated a lot of southern evangelicals to either switch from Dem to GOP or to go out and vote for the first time.
That certainly bolstered the GOP in southern states. But once the once the tail started wagging the dog, it cost more than it was worth in states like MO, CO, IL…the list goes on.
McCaskill came into office because of a visceral disgust on the part of moderate voters for Jim Talent, who waved the flag of his fundamentalism.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM
thank you
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM
In most cases, of course, the pork doesn’t really help them. Because the Federal government is an inefficient manager, any benefits provided via pork are more expensive and/or of lower quality than those same benefits would be if produced in the free market. For an example of pork as poison, one need look no further than Chicago. Billions of dollars have poured into the inner city. The result? Crack dealers are the only really successful people in the neighborhood, people live in miserable government housing paid for by their government check. If Uncle Sam took giant bag o’ money and went home, in a year you’d see more stores and cleaner homes.
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Did he also have those locked up?
jmarcure on July 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Obama’s persistent censorship, book burning, constitutionally diplomatic visa denial is mounting parallel with our national debt to Communist China.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Yes, what bravery. Show those low income people that they don’t deserve decent affordable healthcare! What courage and strength!
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Hope!
Blacklake on July 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM
The RNC is exactly like the local party…they divide folk into two groups, the county club, check writing elites which includes elected folk, who must be protected and pandered to on all occasions, and everyone else who simply do not count except on election day. What the second group desires and demands is of no consequence. The proof of my contention is demonstrated every day in the incompetent actions of the party everywhere.
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Listen this guy is wrong, just plain wrong…the constitution is many pages, and it has already been decided by democrat leaders that reading such things is not possible or of any use.
So what he is asking is for a politician to defend something that he hasn’t read…which is just plain foolish.
How can you defend something, you don’t know anything about?
right2bright on July 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
W. C. Fields
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Too true, Chainsaw56. But the scary thing is that it actually sums up the Left’s approach to politics and power.
None of the Left’s sacred cows stand up to reasoned, probative debate. Take your pick on any Leftist issue: everone of them is advanced using appeals to emotion.
Economics? “The system is unfair!…you’re being preyed upon!…the rich are cheating you out of your share!”
Health care? “It’s a right!…they want to let you die in the street!”
Global warming? “The debate is over…the deniers are like Nazis!”
And don’t make the mistake of thinking that this phenomenon is simply some sort of weird “accident of ignorance”. It’s purposeful and it’s planned. Because any good motivational speaker will tell you: if you want to motivate someone into doing what you want, don’t appeal to their intellect…appeal to their ego and their self-interest.
For over 50 years, the Western Left has been purposefully cultivating an ignorant, irrational populace throughout the Western world. And people who don’t have the ability to reason, only have the ability to rage.
A thing cannot be two things at once: it must eventually become all one or all the other. I fear that a violent clash is on the horizon between those who are gladly putting their necks through the yoke and those who unwilling to be dragged along with them.
rvastar on July 29, 2009 at 12:35 PM
McCaskill is in my district…She is about as smart as Barbara Boxer. How the hell did she get elected in MO? BTW we have an awesome oragnizition of tea party/9-12′ers here. Taking it to the tyrants!
daesleeper on July 29, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I do not recall every seeing a “fundamentalist” politcian in IL (I am life long IL resident), but it is possible tha voters were turned off by the perception of the GOP.
Like the soldier in the video, I feel strongly that the GOP message should be limited federal government. Polticians that wear the religion on their sleve should ensure that their federal message is limit the power of federal government so it does impose moral laws nor prohibit the states from creating moral laws. For example:
Abortion: Federal, overturn Roe, and do not create any abortion law. State, go ahead and talk about ban abortions.
Gay Marriage: Federal, no ban on Gay Marriage, but ensure that one state does not have to accept the gay marriage performed in another state. State, retain marriage as is.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Yup.
atheling on July 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Irony being, illegal aliens and welfare scabs don’t realize their present unpaid parasitic ride on US medical care is doomed to disappear with the Obama Sand-Man Health Dictatorship. Stolen eyes.
ETA Hoffman, The Sand-Man
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM
When’s the next CPAC?
ProudPalinFan on July 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You better call before you show up at Cheney’s house, though.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Are you one of those folk who believes case law and precedent trumps the clear language of the original law itself? You know, the “congress shall make no law..” except the laws they make anyway…
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I agree Gun. I am completely against abortion, but I don’t think it should be a political issue. What’s the use if Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned? Leave it to the states. Also, I couldn’t care less either way about gay marriage. Another thing to be left to the states. That’s where I disagreed with Bush, and of course the spending. If they could get a good libertarian-leaning candidate in 2012, they could defeat this lady easily.
I agree more with the conservatives or Republicans (to a certain extent) more than I do the Dems. The radicalism of the Dem party is evident every day in Boxer, Conyers, Waxman, and Pelosi, and Obama to a certain extent. McCaskill is walking a fine line, and I’m sure as hell glad she’s not my senator.
NathanG on July 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Bzzzt. Now you’re violating the Privileges & Immunities clause.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM
If one dose not understand the intent of a bit of the Constitution, the answer to interpretation is clear…
“”The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59 ”
and
“”In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 “
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Liberals don’t pay taxes.
Sure, have your guns ready. But the first step in halting the collectivisation of America is for taxpayers (i.e., conservatives) to stop financing their own enslavement.
I think that’s happening now. And if Barak Hussein Obama thinks that he can order men like this one to open fire on law-abiding Americans, he has another think coming.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM
That man for the POTUS.
feedercattle on July 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Again an easy issue…look at the common practices of the era. There were things that were legal and things that were not…My problem with Constitutional interpretation is that the left uses it to make things clearly NOT considered legal or moral by the folk writing the Constitution, Constitutional under ‘interpretation’.
Abortion comes to mind..In 1791 when Congress met under the new Constitution the practice was illegal in every state and in some a capital offense. Having a Court find the practice through divination 200 years later is amazing…the illegal becoming the intent of the founders…
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM
No. The one portion does not constitute a negation of the other. P&I must be respected between States, and congress may (not shall) legislate the manner in which this takes place.
Frex the whole gay marriage thing. Congress may legislate that such marriage certificates are not to be rendered invalid (ie. they remain legally ‘married’), but that States may require state-issued certificates for certain official forms of documentation.
Of course, such an example highlights why the Founders would not have conceived of government intruding into such private matters in the first place. We have become a more meddlesome and vindictive people, seeking ever-greater encroachment into others’ lives when they seem ‘inappropriate’.
Humans are a nasty breed, in general. I am thankful for the relative handful of enlightened souls I have encountered. They may not be many, but they give me hope.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM
“The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Proud RINO, you’re a one-trick pony. Without straw men to knock down, you’d be lost.
Do a little reading on textualism before you embarrass yourself further.
OhioCoastie on July 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Indeed, sir. Apropos.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Or perhaps more to the point:
“Aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Another bullseye.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM
This also applies:
“[If] it [were] assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the ‘general welfare,’ that [would include] all the legitimate powers of government, since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Awww, looks like the Proud Rino safari is over and we have scared him away…
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Just in case, I do not want the feds to render, for example, a gay marriage performed in Vermont invalid in the state of vermont. I would approve of the federal government saying that Illinois does not have to respect the pubic act of vermont in this case.
My reasoning for this position is that I view the consitution’s provides higher priority to protecting the rights of states than of people (i.e., states are the first priority and the people are secondary). I take this position from 10th amendment:
States come first, than people.
This battle on encroachment on peoples lives should be fought exclusively at the state level ideally. The battle at the federal level should be the encroachment on the “states’ lives”.
I sometimes create a minor brush storm when I say, and believe, that the second amendment only means the federal congress shall may no law to prohibit arms, but states can (but I would not support a state ban on weapons).
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
You’re right, Jeff. It wasn’t just MO, it was a result of the Dems being able to brand the GOP as a hostage to evangelicals because the evangelical voices became so strident within the party.
I live in Marin County, CA now. Barbara Boxer’s home.
votes over 70% Dem.
I was researching Marin’s voting history and was astonished to find that Marin had voted strongly GOP for President every time until 1988.
Some of that shift might be demographic, but Marin is still one of the whitest counties in America. People here are smart, hard-working property owners and they don’t like taxes any more than anyone else.
My guess is the shift was based upon their perception that the GOP had been captured by culture warriors. These people live like conservative suburbanites, but like to think of themselves as bohemians. They like their marijuana, their beautiful environment and on Sunday mornings, they don’t go to church, they go hiking and biking and walking on the beach.
Like everyone else, they mostly want to be left alone and their perception is that evangelicals want to dictate morals to them.
Just my humble opinion, but having lived in NYC, St. Louis, Philadelphia and now Marin, I see one consistent theme: people don’t like it when you mix religion with politics.
As far as I’m concerned, abortion, gay marriage and maybe even drugs are states-rights issues. When we try to make them Federal issues, we lose.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Well said.
I don’t think the left has anything except for Lies and double standards.
And you’re right, they appeal on emotion and throw logic out the window.
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I suspect that in the weeks and months ahead, we’ll see more video clips like this at townhall meetings around the country. The desire to live free has not yet died.
WordsMatter on July 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM
As a soldier who has also fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, the efforts of this young man are equivalent to going on patrol, packing a ruck sack, executing training to standard, and “supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Yes, to some of us, an oath means something.
My brother–well said.
RLTW
ted c on July 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Except that the 2nd amendment doesn’t differentiate between state and federal, so it is pretty cut and dried that no infringement in the right to bear arms shall be made on any level. That said, should we have say private owned nuclear weapons? No. But hand guns and ‘assault rifles’, yes. No one has the right to infringe my right of ownership.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I would agree, except for the 14th Amendment.
On the other hand, I abhor the 14th Amendment.
The beauty of the 10th Amendment and state’s rights is that if my state wants to ban firearms, I have a much better chance of influencing that argument than I do at the Federal level. That’s exactly how the Founding Fathers intended it. The 14th Amendment gave the statists a huge weapon to wield against the states.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
atheling on July 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Again, I would argue that the P&I clause could be used to effect ‘incorporation’ upon the States. Whatever laws the States wish to enact vis-a-vis firearms, they may not fundamentally abridge the rights guaranteed to them by the US Constitution.
If it could be otherwise, then what good is the constitution at all?
What you advocate is, at its heart, part of the reason the original Articles of Confederation fell apart.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I would add machine guns, artillery, armor. The 2nd Amendment is about resisting tyranny. We can’t do that effectively without proper weaponry.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Examples:
In these two he tries to eliminate any possible way of describing the intent…
The mistaken belief is that it could be described without additional references.
How is that not a fallacy?
His logic fails once again. You were just stating your credentials, rather robustly I might add.;)
btw I’m a little disappointed you called me a roach, but I‘ll get over it…1…2…3…4… Done;)
Good day to you…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Behind this young man stand thousands upon thousands of other young men and women who possess the same values and have similar experiences. Moreover, they see the Constitution they’ve deployed and defended being denigrated before their own eyes.
Claire McCaskill, you shall be defeated upon your reelection attempt. You shall fail–you are not worthy of leading such men as this.
Those young men and women who are behind this young soldier, overseas they are chambering rounds–here they are clearing their throats. The end result of both will be similar.
Troops in contact. Missouri–priority of fires there. Target: Claire McCaskill
ted c on July 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Second that. I would love to repeal that one (and the 16th, 17th and, oh what the hell, the 19th too ;-)) and include in the repeal the original intent of the amendment.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Well, your definition of life isn’t other people’s definition. Leave it to the states. In any case, by trying to flip Roe v Wade and turn it back to the Federal government to ban abortion, you will lose. The only chance you have to ban abortion is to have Roe v Wade overturned and then try to influence your state legislature.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
<blockquoteSecond that. I would love to repeal that one (and the 16th, 17th and, oh what the hell, the 19th too ;-)) and include in the repeal the original intent of the amendment.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I would suggest that almost every amendment after the 10th has been an abomination.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Here’s where I create a brushfire ;)
I say “Yes”. You do have the right to own a nuclear weapon. This is a far cry from actually possessing one.
Let’s not forget the first part of the 2nd Amendment – “A well regulated Militia” – that justifies laws, frex, regarding the carriage of arms (holstered, pocketed, openly, concealed etc). The same rationale can be applied to nukes – they must be stored in such a manner that they are secure and incapable of being stolen or launched by unauthorized persons. The costs involved in not only building the weapon itself, but also complying with the security requirements, would likely bankrupt Bill Gates.
In short, the only entities capable of practically exercising their ‘right’ to own a nuke are nation-states. You won’t be picking one up at NukeMart anytime soon.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Which might require a nuke or two ;)
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Yes, exactly.
That’s where all the Leftist’s schemes fall apart – they have to depend on achievers and producers to finance their own enslavement.
It will happen in one of two ways – either a gradual slow down of the economy as more and more achievers drop out at the prospect of every more confiscatory taxation(or fees ,or surcharges or ……)
Or the achievers and producers can go on strike.
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I might not go that far, but I certainly think that a great many of them are unnecessary if we only strictly adhere to the original document.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
While he is correct, we are unfortunately well beyond this. As I go out and debate liberals on this kind of stuff all the time, I am hearing more and more that “we know better than the founders”. They actually believe that it really doesnt matter what the Framers wrote or intended. They believe that we are smarter and better educated than the Framers. Our education has failed us. Worst of all, I have heard this argument from some of my co-workers, and I am in the military.
jspsax1 on July 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Funny you should say that. There is a pretty strong Libertarian Party in MO. As a matter of fact, McCaskill only won her seat because Libertarians were so disgusted by Jim Talent’s cultural pandering that they voted Libertarian instead of GOP. Had they voted for Talent instead, he would have won. Same thing happened in Montana and Oregon.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM
After going through the last three pages of “give-n-take” I have come to an inescapable conclusion:
I’m buying more ammunition and clips.
TwinkietheKid on July 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM
This video is telling on a few levels. First, Claire McCaskill was conveniently absent. Message is that she lacks courage. Second, the young soldier is dressed neatly in a suit and armed with facts and passion. Message is that he is ready. Put those together and the goverment is afraid of the people–a key facet for liberty as President Thomas Jefferson opined.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill
Yes, this young man keeps courageous Claire-fat bottomed girl-McCaskill free by his own exertions. And what has she done for him….? He asked the question.
ted c on July 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
The worst amendment was the 17th. Ever since we passed that mess the Senators stopped pandering to their state and began pandering to the public, which resulted in the ‘Unfunded Mandate’
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Better hop to it…most ammo and clips are on 3 month backorder in my neck of the woods.
An AR-15 that went for $600 3 years ago costs $2500 now.
California Assembly is trying to pass a bill limiting ammo purchases to 50 rounds per month, with registration of ammo and a ban on mail-order purchases.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I prefer the term ‘Sport Utility Rifle’, it’s descriptive of it function and has a nice in your face to the leftists phraseology.
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM
How altering a fundamental aspect of our representative structure was ever considered a good idea, I’ll never know.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM
‘Incorporation’ is a 14th amendment court interpretation…that I really really hate. I do not want the fedral government to protect me from my state, unless said protection is stated in the constitution. I federal government that can protect me from my state can take away liberties just as well then.
I disagree with the “reason the original Articles of Confederation fell apart.” I view on the reason for lack of success was coinage, regulate a free market between states, and the power to collect taxes at the federal level to provide for common defense of the states.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
1913 was a very very bad year for the country.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM
OK…I was hyperbolic. But I would gladly repeal Amendments 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 26.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM
That’s what happens when the Left gets a monopoly on education.
When children don’t learn what our Founding Fathers pledging their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” really meant, we have lost our rudder.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I join that complaint of the GOP. If possession were 9/10 of the law, the elites presume to possess the party and the plurality assumes assent to progressives as silence is legally interpreted.
Thank God for young men and women with Constitutional integrity. This Marine has. He is not alone. I wish him well and support his cause as my own. Those with youth organizations could sponsor his tour from one congregation to the next. Motivate and educate our growing children of our American heritage. The Constitution is our rightful legacy as citizens of our sovereign nation. It is our core.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM
No. “Incorporation” is a ‘judicial philosophy’, or an ‘interpretive discipline’ if you prefer. It has leaned on the P&I provision of the 14th for its legitimacy, which is strange, because the P&I clause was originally penned in A4:S2:C1 of the original Constitution.
“Incorporation” is a bedrock principle of Federalism…the tension between Federalist and anti-Federalist theory is an interesting line to trace. The 10th Amendment is a big nod to the anti-Federalists, frex.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
It also saw the establishment of the Federal Reserve…
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I always thought that this argument would be a good way to get the far-left\anti-Bush\anti-War types on board with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is the ONLY tax system that allows the individual to protest the actions of the federal government by voluntarily not funding the government via not buying stuff, or at least limiting yourself to the staples.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I also meant to add that it also leaned on the “Due Process” clause.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Yeah. The 16th was a clear signal of intent to rape the people.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Oooooo good Lord, the 16th amendment, 17th amendment, and the federal reserve! Was Teddy behind this?
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »