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 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
True. It also strikes me as being a profoundly more equitable and moral way for the government to generate revenue, as it repudiates the power of the government to take.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
And my apologies if not doing enough research, as perhaps I jumped a gun noting an argument without all that led up to the point of impact. Pugilism has kept me from extinction while landing/absorbing bruises, preferably not unnecessarily. I live, I learn.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I’m in Missouri and 35 miles from Sierra Bullets :) Most ammo is not that expensive here… I say most. I have some exotic stuff that was pretty high.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Wow…. reasonable rational thread with no real namecalling now that RINO is gone…
Sure aint a Birther/Dualist thread…
I think a party, based on going back to the Constituion of about 1890 (ie, pre progresive Amendments) would win elections in a landslide.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Since I won’t post a comment like this on one of those threads in protest…Ed\AP please stop with those theads!
I remember saying something like that in the past couple months. It has taken the progressives 100 years to get to where we are now. It is reasonible to assume to may take 100 years to get back to Constituion of about 1890.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM
They were calling me names! It’s my fault that they were calling me names? I swear, there is no personal responsibility left in this country – everything is always someone else’s fault. No one is accountable for their own actions. Pathetic.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Quit whining you vacuous, sniveling, leftist fag.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
reference 11:54 for second thought
LimeyGeek referenced ProudRino, the same target of my reference as well. Yes, the point was that this kid refuses to read, including his refusal to utilize the dictionary on his own, substantiating your point regarding this kid. It is sub-rino, limited to the artificial intelligence of a “roach” that would not use a dictionary. This kid behaves as an illiterate spoiled thug hiding from light in the dark corners.
BTW, the “roach” artificial intelligence article was headlined @ Drudge Sunday, machine threatens humanity topic.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.
So whats to stop a politician from looting the treasury to maintain power?
(In case you forgot)
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Allah? Ed? Michelle? Anyone still moderate this thing?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Quick, get your guns! The RINO safari is back on ;)
Oh poor Proud Rino. Just like a libtard to play the victim card. You kept posting the same tired arguments and asking to be spoon fed answers and then trying to pull a Clinton and redefine words because you don’t like the facts (nor can accept them because they do not fit into the liberal fantasy land you live in)
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
MOMMY! MOMMY! MOMMY! WIPE MY ARSE FOR ME!
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Well, I don’t know what you mean by looting, I mean, obviously actually physically stealing money is illegal, there are laws against that. So what are you saying? People voting for pork projects are looting? What’s to prevent that? I don’t get it.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Seriously, what does it take to get banned here?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Not to mention Sandy Berger and the Democrat thefts from the National Archive.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
You are upset he called you a cigarette or a chore or an arduous and tiresome task? He is from the UK (hence the screename of LIMEYGEEK. Slang is different there. Its like a whole other country or something :P
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Cry weeweewee all the way home.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Wow. I’m just surprised – I didn’t think anti-gay slurs were tolerated here. That’s really disappointing.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Anti-intelligent slurs are such a proud rino drag.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
The welfare state is completely dependent upon the voluntary payment of taxes. I’ve said this for years: when “Atlas shrugs” it won’t be a handful of geniuses going to live in an invisible canyon somewhere; it will be millions of American taxpayers suddenly realizing that the federal government is no longer their friend.
Liberals feel no more empathy for the whining of their hosts than any other parasite does. Free men and women can never out-reproduce two-legged sheep while we have to support their children before our own. And we will never be able to out-proselytize a religion based solely on narcissism.
Communists only understand one thing: greed. And the only way we will ever get their attention is stop paying them tribute. This has happened a hundred times before in a hundred different countries. They always respond with violence, and we have to be ready for that. But when it comes to cutting off leeches, sooner is always better than later.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Y’know, I thought he might be USMC because he said he “went overseas with his rifle.” Didn’t necessarily sound like something a soldier would say – no “Rifleman’s Creed” in the Army.
muggedbyreality on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
What limits are there to stop politicians from Taxing one group, in order to buy votes from another?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Textualism, Proud RINO. Textualism.
OhioCoastie on July 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Dang… Rino came back… there went the neighborhood.
How is it that when a troll walks in, the Average Intelligence of all the posters seems to decrease?
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Well it depends on the groups involved. If you’re talking about taxing one group more than another because of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. you would have equal protection problems.
But taxing one group in terms of wealth more in order to buy votes from poorer people? There’s no law against taxing the wealthy more. But raising taxes in general is unpopular because a) poor people may be wealthy someday and b) wealthy people fund political campaigns, and money wins elections.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Hey Mave,
No biggie…ain’t Rino hunting fun…;)
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Apparently none since that is exactly what the democrats have done any time they are in office. The pay for the poor vote by expanding the dole, they pay for the green vote with Crap-n-Take, and so on. There have been republicans take the same tactics as well, but for the most part, they are one hit wonders (Bush 41). If we just eliminated all the unnecessary social programs and non-humanitarian foreign aid, we wouldn’t have a deficit.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
urtext
Alo Konsen
Thank you, OhioCoastie.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Yes, very good. That’s what textualism is. I wonder where all our Original Intent ‘WHY DON’T YOU GO READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS LIBTARD” crowd thinks about all that?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
thank you
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
James Madison:
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Textualism still needs framers intent to put the language into proper context. But I agree, this living document crap is just that… crap.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
The Statists have to remember that when the achievers and producers decide stop sacrificing themselves, they are going to between a rock and hard place.
One side will be the taxpayers who have decided enough is enough, and the other will be the moochers demanding all this promised largess.
It’s not going to be pretty.
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
So are you saying that there are no limits?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I enjoy learning from those who have earned knowledge via study and application.
Leave the turd to pick up his own dump.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Then go educate yourself. You are plainly unwilling to accept anything outside of your own emotional bias so you will be unable to accept instruction from anyone but yourself. You have shown yourself to be mentally incapable of rational discourse, frequently resorting to ad ignorantium arguments.
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Not legal limits, no, not that I’m aware of. There are other things that prevent that from happening. Seriously dude, what’s your point here?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Hey Mave,
No…Thank You...Your insight on many issues always make me think…
Even if i don’t post…I’m here most every day.
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Who is this guy and is he going to challenge his sitting senator for in the next election?!!
lwssdd on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
What i love right now is the rino chatter in the background…HAHAHA…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
When did I do that?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Concur, because we need to know both the Text of what writers wrote, and also the definition of the words when they wrote them.
Its like, the Right to keep and bear ARMS… an ARM is not a gun, but a weapon you carry to war… but that is not the current definition that they use… so yes, I should be able to carry my swords in public! /smile
Its like “Natural Born Citizen” which when writen, meant born on American soil of an American Father, as that was the two way you could gain citizenship (soil, and lineage).
or regulate commerce amongst the varios States… which common usage at the time meant BETWEEN the States if they had a dispute… not control all commerce in the country…
Words do matter… text does matter… but you have to use the MEANING from when it was written.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Pretty much every post of yours from the first one.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Well, it should be easy to pick one, then, and explain how it’s an ad ignorantium argument.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Actually, WashJeff, Madison was referring to a bill on the floor of the Congress that would provide relief funds for French nationals who had fled a genocidal slave uprising in Haiti.
But there are many, many references in the Federalist papers and from the Founding Fathers which explicitly warn against re-distributionist politics.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Bravo! This young man was very eloquent and it’s rare to hear people his age talk about things other than what they’re entitled to or spouting their Marxist nonsense.
Still, I’m a little disheartened by hearing so much from the right wing blogosphere about taxing and $
Sure, the economics are very important to all Americans. But Liberty transcends money.
Dr. ZhivBlago on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Seriously? Everyone here is OK with this kind of thing?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Then you are unaware of any limits on Governmental power?
What are those “other things” that prevent that from happening?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I agree completely. A huge part of determining the Founding Fathers intent is understanding what the word meant when the Constitution was written.
That’s why the ‘living document’ folks are so wrong. The problem lies when people (like certain posters on here) try to redefine the word to modern standards.
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
There was prior to the 16th amendment, but even that does not get to the core. I believe it was John Adams who said our constitution was designed for moral people. A moral person, IMHO, respects anothers property and labor they used to attain property. I find immoral to covet another’s property. I find highly immoral to covet’s another’s property more so because they have more property than others.
If we cannot respect others property, labor, and person, civil society will perish. Maybe not tomorrow, but it will perish over time.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Me to, which got me in trouble in College… LOL… never did finish my Bachelors after a “History” Prof called me a Facist, because I disagreed with im on what went down in Lebanon in 83 (he had read about it, I was there), in front of class, while wearing my Navy Uniform (had gotten off work late that day…).
Since then? Machiavelli, three types of Intellect…. LOL
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
What are those “other things” that prevent that from happening?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Their own restraint, clearly.
anuts on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Money is property. When the government has limitless claim upon your property, you are a slave.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I went the other direction. I went to the local government office and changed my name to “General Welfare.” Now where is my money suckas!
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM
He said, “…a moral people and no other..”
We failed that test long ago.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM
You cannot find a more essential, primary component of liberty than property rights.
anuts on July 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I wish 50.1% (actually more would be better) of out voting population could make this connection.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM
In the post I quoted. You appealed to ignorance, to negative evidence, by arguing techinques such as “What’s to prevent that?” It leads to the condition that your proposition (it’s not looting) must be true if negating evidence cannot be found.
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Well, there are plenty of limits on government power, but there’s nothing in the Constitution that says, “Congress shall only tax up to 36% for the top marginal income tax, but beyond that is just ridiculous,” or “There should be a flat tax and that’s it.”
But like I said earlier, money wins elections. Rich people have money. Even though you can win elections with poor people, you still need to get your name out there and have ads, travel, etc.
Furthermore, poor people may be rich some day. So even if a policy helps them right now, they don’t want to work hard and finally get to the top of the mountain only to have most of their earnings taken away. So they’re not going to be as inclined to vote for those kinds of policies.
Finally, we’re a two party system. If one party says, “We’re going to soak the rich!” The other party is going to say, “They’re going to raise taxes and DESTROY THE ECONOMY!” So even though people may want to soak the rich, they don’t want to destroy the economy.
Or the tax cutting party may hold more socially conservative views, which resonate with lower income voters, so while they may hate rich people and want to tax them to heck, they *really* hate abortions and gay marriage, and would rather have low taxes on the wealthy then have a planned parenthood on every corner (or whatever).
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Semper fi!
From an old “squid”.
BTW: When I started to read the comments about that wonderful young man’s speech, I found myself thinking it would take a special kind of Kos-kid bottomfeeding troll to rear its ugly head.
Back under the bridge.
1921 C DRUM on July 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM
from Enemies both Foreign and Domestic…
thank you for your service young man…
Kaptain Amerika on July 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
That’s the rub. Most other previous “Reformations” have taken place either in resource-based Third-World economies.
If done correctly (and I’m not saying Obama has anything like the necessary skill), over half of the GDP could be retained – at least for a short time. And splitting up the loot among a mob of slavering supporters was relatively easy to do.
But such a transformation ever has never occurred in an economy anywhere NEAR as advanced as America’s (because no other has ever existed.) So you’re talking about a reduction in GDP of far greater than 50% – probably at least 75% – with an even larger reduction in the tax base.
In addition, Obama is STARTING OUT with a welfare state that already takes up about 30% of GDP. So, when the entire economy shrinks to less than that, where are you going to find enough crumbs to throw to the rabble to make them slavishly devoted to your cause?
Liberals will argue for any despotism — they don’t even need to be asked, let alone paid, to do that. But these losers are never going to fight a war for Obama.
He’s got the radical “Death to Free Enterprise” thing down pat. But I honestly can’t see that he has any endgame planned at all.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM
What exactly does going to law school have to do with understanding a document written at a middle school level of reading comprehension? argumentum ad ignorantiam
You argue that because you didnt take his classes he didnt push Marxism. argumentum ad ignorantiam
You TRY to turn the argument around to make the Supreme Court (who it is up to to make sure laws are constitutional) and 0bmaa’s qualifications are equal.
Really, do I need to go on?
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Actualy, there was a Supreme court case which stated that the 16th did NOT over ride the capitation requirement of the earlier parts of the Constitution…
But the Government does not recognize that limit, and the Courts will not take up the case again.
The net… really cool to be able to get to source docs.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I think you misunderstood – I didn’t understand his question, so in asking “What’s to prevent that?” I was trying to figure out what his ‘actual’ question was. He said “So is it legal to loot?” or whatever. Obviously, it’s not legal, so he (probably) meant something else with his question. I wasn’t making an argument, I was trying to figure out what he wanted to ask me.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Soldier is spelled with a capital “S”, just like Marine is spelled with a capital “M”! But really, how can you be surprised, Ed? Servicemen are smarter than civilians.
Especially civilians named Barack Obama.
Virus-X on July 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM
EPIC READING COMPREHENSION FAIL.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Only to provide basic definitions and usage forms. The only time intent becomes an issue is when multiple definitions of a word could (in use at the time) would make sense in the context of the written piece. I would argue that the use of the word “bear” in the second amendment is a an excellent example of this. It could be used both figuratively encompassing all potential weapons that could be operated, or it could be used literally referring to such weapons that an individual could personally carry and use.
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM
The Equal Protections Clause of Amendment XIV also doesn’t enumerate any of the following stated here:
It does, however, state “All persons born or naturalized (meaning all citizens)…”
anuts on July 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Exactly.
They can control your behavior with how much they take, and they can use that money to control others.
Okay, Proud Rino, where do you stand on the issue?
Do you believe the government has an unlimited right to your property or do you believe that while some taxation is a necessary evil, it has to be limited?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Or taken to together with the next word could mean we are allowed to collect ursine limbs….
:P
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM
No, that’s not an argument from ignorance, that was a question I asked, because he (and you) both made the bare assertion fallacy. You assumed something “Constitution is simple clear and concise” or “written at a middle school level,” with no basis in fact.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM
“Oh yeah, well prove to ME that I’m a retard!”
Dude, if you want to make fun of moonbats, knock yourself out. But don’t ever PLAY with them; that only makes it worse.
logis on July 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM
No, the government does not have an unlimited right to your property. They have to tax, and sometimes they have to take land for the common good. Normatively, I believe that the free market should be the default position – the freer the better. That’s not to say it’s always the right answer. But I believe it should be our presumption.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM
It is only illegal if you or I do it…if government does it it is governance,
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM
LOL…. so I have the RIGHT to carry around a Tank? Just not the physical ability… dang…
Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM
No, I present it as fact because in the State of Missouri, you are required to pass a US Constitution class (and test on it) in the 5th grade. If they are teaching 5th graders the Constitution, it stands to reason that it would be a middle school reading level. Hell, I had the preamble memorized by the 1st grade (Bless you, School House Rock!). Your aguement that you must attend law school to properly understand a document written at such a level is the argument from ignorance
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Yet that was not what the founders intended
“[There are] cases which, though within the words of the law, [are] notoriously not within its intention, and are therefore relievable by an equitable exercise of discretionary power.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:173
JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Okay, are you following your 2:42PM position or your 2:58PM position?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I love that scene in “Melting Pot” where they show the immigrants climbing over the fence and driving over the board with 40 people smashed into a truck. Then they pan back to Ellis Island and showing the poor schlubs waiting in line. Good Times! /sarc off
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Here’s what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood “arms” to mean in the Second Amendment: any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.
OhioCoastie on July 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The ideology doesn’t fit the circumstances – like you said this kind of thing ‘May’ work in a third world cesspool, but not here.
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM
“Proud Rino” – what a bizarre choice of handle. To announce that you are proud of being a superficial fraud.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM
The more destructive, the better! Shits’n'giggles ahoy!
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:12 PM
No Limits?
Limits?
(I know, argue that money isn’t property!)
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I think you misunderstood – I didn’t understand his question, so in asking “What’s to prevent that?” I was trying to figure out what his ‘actual’ question was. He said “So is it legal to loot?” or whatever. Obviously, it’s not legal, so he (probably) meant something else with his question. I wasn’t making an argument, I was trying to figure out what he wanted to ask me.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Cool.. I ll take a Sea Wolf Class Attack Sub, 20 F-22s (since 0bama doesn’t want them), 2 B-2 Spirits, and a couple of dozen MinuteMan IIIs :)
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Actually, Proud Rino is right on one thing, although he/she doesn’t really know it, or what to do with it….there is no theoretical limit on taxation, thanks to the 16th amendment.
Well….there is one ultimate limit…..the 2nd Amendment ;)
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I thought Proud Rino got you banned for calling him a cigarette (or an arduous and tiresome task)
:P
Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM
As guntotinglibertarian eloquently pointed out:
So which side are you on? The side of Liberty or Tyranny?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM
in case this hasn’t bee quoted already:
You keep using that clause….I do not think it means what you think it means.
29Victor on July 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I only the right ones though……
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM
They have, but they should be presented often and incorporated to congress orientation day.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Here’s what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood “arms” to mean in the Second Amendment: any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.
OhioCoastie on July 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I love gays.
But I couldn’t eat a whole one.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:24 PM
you’re just not fagged enough.
Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »