Red Lines and Rockets: Reframing the War on Gaza
4 hours ago
"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." January 04 2011 Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Ignorant, Racist, Fascist Bastards - The Republicans Attempt To Change The Rules Instead Of Getting The Job Done [Pop Out Player? Click Here] Prefer An MP3 Playlist? It's Here: [128kbps MP3 9:44 Minutes] Other Audio Formats Available [ Here ] Razer Raygun Says: ♥ Sharing IS Caring! ♥ |
To Open Congress, House Republicans Will Read Constitution Aloud, Ignore the Parts They Hate
There’s nothing wingnuts love more than meaningless political theater.When Republicans take over the House next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the chamber’s 221-year history: They will read the Constitution aloud.And Jon Chait makes a funny observation.My favorite part is going to be when they read the word “welfare.” It’s in the first sentence!Yeah, well — maybe they’ll just skip the preamble. But, unfortunately for the Republicans, they’ll also have to read this:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Again with the taxes and the welfare.
Then there’s this:The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.But…but…Obama’s executive overreach!
And this:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…Oopsie! That means George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals, since they violated the Geneva Conventions... [More @ Firedoglake]
Q: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?(Factcheck.org on the "Godamn pieces of paper" quote. They drub it based on the fact that the only reporting agency, Capitol Hill Blues, which claims to have three witnesses, had been 'conned' before and was liable to be getting 'conned' again... Just as might happen to ANY news outlet over time... Judith Miller and the other lesser known shills (no quotes intentional) for the Pentagon come immediately to mind...)Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.Q: What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?
[Find out in this California Lawyer interview from September 2010]
I B Bad. I'm The 897,186,093 Richest Person On Earth! Discover how rich you are Here! |
No comments:
Post a Comment