Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution

F

Fuckallyall

Rising Star
BGOL Patreon Investor
From The Wall Street Journal.com

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution


The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.
By ANDREW P.

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.


FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.
Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.
In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.
What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.
And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.
There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.
It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.
The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).
Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.
Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.
Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).
 
As of today I can proudly say I am in the not-voting category. The bailout was the last straw for me rationalizing the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting.
 
Greed said:
As of today I can proudly say I am in the not-voting category. The bailout was the last straw for me rationalizing the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting.
Click to expand...

Errr.... Not voting was not the point of the article. It is god to be involved in history.
 
Fuckallyall said:
Errr.... Not voting was not the point of the article. It is god to be involved in history.
Click to expand...
I'm not willing to be involved in history just for the sake of being involved in history.

Obama will be a good president, I have no doubt. But the article clearly illustrates what that means in modern times and its an ugly thing.
 
Fuckallyall said:
From The Wall Street Journal.com

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution


The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.
By ANDREW P.

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.


FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.
Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.
In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.
What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.
And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.
There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.
It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.
The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).
Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.
Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.
Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).
Click to expand...

Good post. This is why I didn't vote for Obama.
 
Things That Are Not in the Constitution ... But You Probably Thought That Are...

Some of these were eye opener for me...............

Innocent until proven guilty

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

The separation of church and state

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. The Religion Topic Page addresses this issue in much greater detail.

Impeachment means removal from office

The word "impeachment" and the phrase "removal from office" are not synonymous. For a President, judge, or other federal official to be removed from office against their will (because resignation is always an option), they must be impeached. Impeachment consists of three phases - the passage of the impeachment by the House, a trial by the Senate, and the imposition of a penalty if the Senate convicts. For members of the executive branch, removal from office is automatic upon conviction. The Senate may also decide to prevent the person from holding any other public office (see Article 2, Section 4). For any other impeachable officer (including judges), there are basically two punishments, which provide four options: the Senate can do nothing; they can remove the person from their office; they can prevent the person from ever holding any office in the federal government again, or both (see Article 1, Section 3).

Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments. There is question of whether the right exists at all, a question that has lingered since the very first President, George Washington, asserted executive privilege in his very first term. Most times, executive privilege is asserted for purported national security reasons. Washington, however, asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty - his rationale was that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. In modern times, Bill Clinton refused to simply comply with an order to appear before a grand jury, and instead negotiated terms under which he would appear. Richard Nixon's is the most infamous use of executive privilege, and while the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The Court ordered Nixon to turn over tapes and documents that a special prosecutor had subpoenaed. More recently, the minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court deflected the case and sent it back to a lower court for further adjudication.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people"

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Gettysburg Address.

The Right to Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. This is precisely why so many amendments have been needed over time - the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Judicial Review

We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution - judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action - after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law.

Political Parties

Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.

No taxation without representation

The battle cry "No taxation without representation!" was a great political slogan coined to counter the Sugar Act of 1764. In order to help recoup the debt it incurred during the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years' War), the British Parliament passed the act, which taxed all manner of foodstuffs imported into the colonies. The Americans, in the midst of economic depression following the war, were not particularly enamored of a new tax. Some have written that the Americans were simply whining tax evaders. The slogan was good for rallying the troops with an easy issue for every one to discern: that since they were not represented in Parliament, the tax should not be levied. However, the ultimate goal of most of the agitators was not representation in Parliament, but independence.

The concept of "no taxation without representation" may be present in general in the United States. But those who are unrepresented (such as convicts and immigrants who cannot vote) are still subject to taxation. Notably, the citizens of Washington, DC, do not have representation in Congress (since 2000, DC license plates have included the phrase "Taxation Without Representation" in an effort to raise awareness of the issue, especially among tourists visiting the city). By virtue of the 23rd Amendment, however, DC does have at least three electoral votes.

Slavery

Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, and "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated. The Slavery Topic Page has a lot more detail.

The Electoral College

The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College." Article 1, Section 2 speaks of "Electors," as do several of the Amendments, but never the college itself. The term comes from common usage in the early 1800's, in the same way that the "College of Cardinals" elects a pope, and is based on the Latin word collegium, which simply refers to a body of people acting as a unit. The term "College of Electors" is used in U.S. law, at 3 USC 4. For more on the Electoral College, see the topic page.

Jury of Peers

People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing - in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."
Click to expand...

Source
http://governmentdirt.com/things_that_are_not_in_the_constitution_but_you_probably_thought_that_are
 
Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution
by Walter Williams
(February 11, 2009)

Dr. Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Oakland-based Independent Institute, penned an article in The Christian Science Monitor (2/9/2009) that suggests the most intelligent recommendation that I've read to fix our current economic mess. The title of his article gives his recommendation away: "Instead of stimulus, do nothing -- seriously."

Stimulus package debate is over how much money should be spent, whether some should given to the National Endowment for the Arts, research sexually transmitted diseases or bail out Amtrak, our failing railroad system. Dr. Higgs says, "Hardly anyone, however, is asking the most important question: Should the federal government be doing any of this?" He adds, "Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget."

By bringing up the idea of constitutional restraints on Washington, I'd say Dr. Higgs is whistling Dixie. Americans have long ago abandoned respect for the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government. Our elected representatives represent that disrespect. After all I'd ask Higgs: Isn't it unreasonable to expect a politician to do what he considers to be political suicide, namely conduct himself according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?

While Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution, I doubt whether they are indifferent between a growing or stagnating economy. Dr. Higgs tells us some of the economic history of the U.S. In 1893, there was a depression; we got out of it without a stimulus package. There was a major recession of 1920-21; though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the "Roaring Twenties." In 1929, there was an economic downturn, most notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive government intervention -- you might call it the nation's first stimulus package. President Hoover and Congress responded to what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs, propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses, and financed state relief efforts. When Roosevelt came to office, he became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over protracted depression where the economy didn't fully recover until 1946.

Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate. My question to my fellow Americans is: Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?

A more fundamental question is: Should Washington be guided by the Constitution? In explaining the Constitution, James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax, spend and regulate as it pleases or have Americans said, "To hell with the Constitution"?

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5418
 
Well, not voting in the election process is not the answer. Awareness is, It must be honest dialog. Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies! We have to be able to trust in each other and rebuild our communities from the ground up.

Although the Constitution, when it was written, was somewhat flawed in regards to blacks, it was written to restrain the power of govt towards the people. MLK showed us we can move mountains with a message of freedom and equality, And he didn't need a dime from Citibank!

With any President, One question must be asked after every decision, Executive Order, anything: Does the action defend the Constitution or does it attack the Constitution? I'm of the opinion that any problem we face today, the answer could be found in that document and amendments thereafter. peace
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

By Walter Williams said:
Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution
Click to expand...

This article (proposing that the stimulus package is extra-Constitutional) posted in this thread (Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution) is a bit odd.

I thought the Madison-Hamilton debate has long ago been decided in that Hamiltonian decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have made it clear that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution <u>is</u> <u>not</u> limited, as Madisonites had urged. Hence, the present spending proposed by Congress and endorsed by the President doesn't ignore the Constitution -- though it may run contrary to those who believe in a stricter construction of the Constitution.

Again, if Constitutional interpretation has endorsed the Hamilton view, I am afraid I don't understand the postulation that "Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution."

Finally, is Walter Williams really addressing a constitutional argument or is he merely using the same as a facade to express his disagreement with the type of spending embodied in the Stimulus Package ??? The latter seems implicit in his query: "Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?"

QueEx
 
Lamarr said:
With any President, One question must be asked after every decision, Executive Order, anything: Does the action defend the Constitution or does it attack the Constitution? I'm of the opinion that any problem we face today, the answer could be found in that document and amendments thereafter. peace
Click to expand...
You omitted the "interpretations of that document" by the Judiciary. Are we to omit the same or are they to be looked to as well ???


QueEx
 
QueEx said:
You omitted the "interpretations of that document" by the Judiciary. Are we to omit the same or are they to be looked to as well ???
QueEx
Click to expand...

I didn't omit the Judiciary, my post was only regarding the Executive branch. But since we are supposed to have a system of checks and balances, the interpretations of the document should be consistent. All too often, personal agendas of judges have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution as well.
 
Lamarr said:
I didn't omit the Judiciary, my post was only regarding the Executive branch. But since we are supposed to have a system of checks and balances, the interpretations of the document should be consistent. All too often, personal agendas of judges have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution as well.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, what is the original intent? You do understand that what is or isn't the original intent is a matter of subjective interpretation. And, even if we knew definitively what that intent "was" -- unless you subscribe to a static view of reality -- trying to discern intent, present day, against the backdrop of societal evolution should give you some idea of the enormity, if not the difficulty, of the endeavor.

QueEx
 
Lamarr said:
. . . interpretations of the document should be consistent. All too often, personal agendas of judges have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution as well.
Click to expand...

If that was absolute, as you imply above: how soon do we reinstitute segregation and restart the defunct plantations ???


QueEx
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

Whatever dominant parties in government all agreeing to ignore the Constitution doesn't settle whether it is limiting or not. Words like "Congress has the power to..." and "_____ shall not be infringed" are not even addressed when discussing pending legislation.

How are any of these bailouts passing a Constitutional test unless you just agree to not address the question? Or the industry specific subsidies or tax breaks?

I'm sure Walter Williams would say the idea of a stimulus is not inconsistent or outside the power of government. Congress can clearly control the level of taxation, constrict or loosen trade with other countries, streamline interstate commerce to make it more efficient to save business money, increase spending for defense, or anything else clearly stated in the Constitution that Congress has authority to address.

No one ask whether the first or the thousandth page of that last spending bill is authorized by the Constitution. Everyone just agrees to not ask.

Both parties' politicians clearly view the Constitution as mostly ceremonial. Something to get an oath from then you do what you can get away with after repeating the oath. And the rank-and-file just hopes it's their guy that gets to ignore the Constitution.
 
QueEx said:
If that was absolute, as you imply above: how soon do we reinstitute segregation and restart the defunct plantations ???
QueEx
Click to expand...

I addressed that in my first post of this thread.
The intent was clear: To restrain the power and force of govt. and to protect the liberties of its citizens
 
Last edited:
Lamarr said:
I addressed that in my first post of this thread.
The intent was clear: To restrain the power and force of govt. and to protect the liberties of its citzens
Click to expand...

You didn't address it, you merely restated 'black letter law' as you do in this post. Reciting principles of law is, I'm afraid, not understanding the application, of law.

QueEx
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

Greed said:
Whatever dominant parties in government all agreeing to ignore the Constitution doesn't settle whether it is limiting or not. Words like "Congress has the power to..." and "_____ shall not be infringed" are not even addressed when discussing pending legislation.

How are any of these bailouts passing a Constitutional test unless you just agree to not address the question? Or the industry specific subsidies or tax breaks?

I'm sure Walter Williams would say the idea of a stimulus is not inconsistent or outside the power of government. Congress can clearly control the level of taxation, constrict or loosen trade with other countries, streamline interstate commerce to make it more efficient to save business money, increase spending for defense, or anything else clearly stated in the Constitution that Congress has authority to address.

No one ask whether the first or the thousandth page of that last spending bill is authorized by the Constitution. Everyone just agrees to not ask.

Both parties' politicians clearly view the Constitution as mostly ceremonial. Something to get an oath from then you do what you can get away with after repeating the oath. And the rank-and-file just hopes it's their guy that gets to ignore the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I read your reply above several times to be sure I was responding to your response. Correct me if I am in error, but as I see it, your response goes to whether or not anyone actually compares a bill to the Constitution, to see whether there is a fit.

Question: What does it matter or not ??? - the legislation has either to meet or fail to meet Constitutional muster. That is, it is either constitutional or unconstitutional. That is the question.

From my experience, those who actually draft legislation are rather proficient in taking into consideration the constitutional requirements. Bills are drafted by rather professional drafters, not ordinarily by senators and representatives. The professional drafters do consider not only the Constitutional but the vast body of past legislation as well (there is an axiom in the law -- that the legislature was aware of past legislation when it drafted the present legislation, hence, there are rules of construction that deal with the impact of new legislation in relation to the past.

Its wrong to think that legislation is drafted in a vacuum.

But, what about the Madison - Hamilton debate/theory of interpretation of the Constitution ? ? ?

QueEx
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

QueEx said:
This article (proposing that the stimulus package is extra-Constitutional) posted in this thread (Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution) is a bit odd.

I thought the Madison-Hamilton debate has long ago been decided in that Hamiltonian decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have made it clear that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution <u>is</u> <u>not</u> limited, as Madisonites had urged. Hence, the present spending proposed by Congress and endorsed by the President doesn't ignore the Constitution -- though it may run contrary to those who believe in a stricter construction of the Constitution.

Again, if Constitutional interpretation has endorsed the Hamilton view, I am afraid I don't understand the postulation that "Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution."

Finally, is Walter Williams really addressing a constitutional argument or is he merely using the same as a facade to express his disagreement with the type of spending embodied in the Stimulus Package ??? The latter seems implicit in his query: "Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?"

QueEx
Click to expand...

Insightful query, Que. I have read a great deal of the writers work, as well as heard several of his speeches. He is in favor of far less government based economic funding of most endevors.

With regards to the part of his article you qouted, he is asking do we want a repeat of the depression.

No one on this board has addressed how is this stimulus and economic policy any different from the one so widely condemned ? There is no talk about getting out of Iraq, no talk of lower spending, no talk of the fact that we are increasing the deficit dramatically, and nothing near conviction that this plan will work, of any quantification that it will work.
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

Fuckallyall said:
Insightful query, Que. I have read a great deal of the writers work, as well as heard several of his speeches. He is in favor of far less government based economic funding of most endevors.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought about you when I started that reply -- LOL -- thinking my comments my evoke a response -- as I sort of know that your and Greed's views are fairly close to Williams' point. As always, thanks for your comments/insight.

Fuckallyall said:
With regards to the part of his article you qouted, he is asking do we want a repeat of the depression.
Click to expand...
Understood and agreed.

My point was simply that Williams posed a "political question" wrapped in constitutional garb. That is, whether the effects of the stimulus is likely to mimic Roosevelt's actions on the Great One -- is a economic/political question; however, Williams attempted to base the answer to the question on a narrow reading of the Constitution -- which, in my opinion, would resolve the matter simply by saying the spending (stimulus) is unlawful and, therefore, cannot be done -- without regard resort to any debate of the usefulness of the spending on the actual merits (which I sumbit would be a proper eco-political debate and resolution).

I think the latter question has long been resolved and, as you have probably discerned, I prefer a more expansive reading of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which requires responsible decision making by those in government. I simply don't want decision making bridled by a narrow interpretation of the Constitutuion which could provide an artificial answer, which might not be based on what might actually be the best thing to do in a given situation.


Fuckallyall said:
No one on this board has addressed how is this stimulus and economic policy any different from the one so widely condemned ? There is no talk about getting out of Iraq, no talk of lower spending, no talk of the fact that we are increasing the deficit dramatically, and nothing near conviction that this plan will work, of any quantification that it will work.
Click to expand...
These, I submit, are all excellent political questions requiring adequate and sufficient debate on the merits. I simply think that the "answers" should not be dictated by a narrow reading of the constitution which, quite possibly, could produce a result having no bearing on whether or not the stimulus package is actually workable.

QueEx
 
Lamarr said:
Or maybe, we should elect those with principles, to enforce / apply the law!
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that, at all. Except, however, its still awfully subjective and those whom are elected presummably are expected to follow the whims (OOppps, principles) of those who elected them. Hence, in my opinion, your elections don't go towards solving the problems -- they may actually exacerbate the problems by overlooking and going unchecked by the minority view. What you want is decision making your way or the highway -- LOL. Thats not terribly unusual as most people want to have it that way, more or less.

I differ from you, prehaps, in that I don't expect all of the reasoning to go my way; I respect opposite reasoning and decisions so long, however, that they don't stray too far of middle ground. I do abhor, however, extreme thinking, from either side of the political/economic spectrum.

QueEx
 
Re: Stimulus Package? The Hell with Our Constitution

I'm not sure about what you mean by the Madison/Hamilton argument in this context. I'm saying, according to the results of legislation, that what the Constitution says isn't a priority. You're essentially using faith to say they think about it at all. I wonder why they would give it any thought if they all agree the Constitution gives them the authority to do essentially anything they want. The only limited government I see is one limited to what it can get away with and still get re-elected.

If over the course of their live, Hamilton and Madison constantly debated the meaning of the articles in Constitution, then that is actually a point in my favor regarding this thread. At this modern time of lack of debate, a win is defined by having a debate about the powers of the federal government at all.

As I think about this thread, I am reminded of those Bush Administration's (now Obama's)wiretapping program threads you bumped recently. This board and the nation argued what the Constitution meant and authorized under that situation and two levels of the court system also weighed in. Is that ever a conversation that gets old or dismissed as settled a long time ago (Constitution not wiretapping)?
 
Racing Past the Constitution - keep thinking "something for nothing"

from townhall.com

Racing Past the Constitution
George Will
Sunday, April 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Rampant redistribution of wealth by government is now the norm. So is this: It inflames government's natural rapaciousness and subverts the rule of law. This degeneration of governance is illustrated by the Illinois Legislature's transfer of income from some disfavored riverboat casinos to racetracks.

Illinois has nine licensed riverboat casinos and five horse-racing tracks. In 2006, supposedly to "address the negative impact that riverboat gaming has had" on Illinois horse racing, the Legislature -- racing interests made huge contributions to Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- mandated a transfer of 3 percent of the gross receipts of the four most profitable casinos, those in the Chicago area, to the state's horse-racing tracks. This levy, subsequently extended to run until 2011, will confiscate substantially more than $100 million.

What is to prevent legislators from taking revenues from Wal-Mart and giving them to local retailers? Or from chain drugstores to local pharmacies? Not the tattered remnant of the Constitution's takings clause.

The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation" (emphasis added). Fifty state constitutions also stipulate taking only for public uses. But the Illinois Supreme Court ignored the public use question. Instead, the court said it is "well settled" that the takings clause applies only to government's exercise of its eminent domain power regarding land, buildings and other tangible or intellectual property -- but not money.

Conflicting rulings by state courts demonstrate that that question is chaotically unsettled. That is one reason the U.S. Supreme Court should take the Illinois case and reject the preposterous idea that money is not property within the scope of the takings clause -- an idea that licenses legislative confiscations. Another and related reason why the court should take the case is to reconsider its 2005 ruling that rendered the "public purpose" requirement empty.

The careful crafters of the Bill of Rights intended the adjective "public" to restrict government takings to uses directly owned by government or primarily serving the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings. In 1954, in a case arising from a disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court broadened the "public use" criterion. It declared constitutional takings for the purpose of combating "blight" that is harmful to the larger community.

In 2005, however, in a 5-4 decision, the court radically attenuated the "public use" restriction on takings, saying that promoting "economic development" is a sufficient public use. The court upheld the New London, Conn., city government's decision to seize an unblighted middle-class neighborhood for the purpose of turning the land over to private businesses which, being wealthier than the previous owners, would be a richer source of tax revenues. So now government takings need have only some anticipated public benefit, however indirect and derivative, at the end of some chain of causation hypothesized by the government doing the taking and benefiting from it.

In a brief opposing the Illinois Legislature, the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators, makes this argument against "predatory taxation": Suppose Congress, eager to aid newspapers hurt by competition from new information technologies, decides to take a percentage of the assets of Bill Gates and half a dozen other beneficiaries of those technologies, and give the money to newspapers. Would not this "take and transfer" scheme be unconstitutional? Targeting specific, identifiable persons or entities for unfavorable treatment, and transferring their assets to equally identifiable persons or entities, surely also raises equal protection issues.

Unquestionably a legislature can impose a levy on casinos if the revenues become subject to what the state legislators' brief calls "allocation via the familiar push and pull of political decision-making." But Illinois' confiscation of riverboat revenues is a private-pockets-to-private-pockets transfer, without even laundering the money through the state treasury.

The Supreme Court has held that "one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose." But in the aftermath of the court's ruling in the New London case, the Illinois Legislature merely seeks judicial deference toward its judgment that transferring wealth from casinos to racetracks serves the public purpose of benefiting "farmers, breeders, and fans of horse racing."

The court's virtual nullification of the "public use" requirement encourages lawlessness, which will proliferate until the court enunciates the constitutional principle that the takings clause protects money, like other forms of property, against egregious seizures. Enunciating such a principle would be a step toward restoring meaning to the "public purpose" clause.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 
225th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution

Happy 225th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

No one gives a fuck what it says or want to follow it but Happy 225th anniversary.

I know the last paragraph will make people Jizz In Their Pants.

Constitution’s extra page shown in public for first time
By NCC Staff | National Constitution Center – 45 mins ago

The National Archives put on public display on Friday the “fifth page” of the Constitution, a document that hasn’t been seen in public before.

The Constitution we all learned about in school and read about today has four pages, and it contains the basic articles that led to the formation of the current U.S. government.

The fifth page is known as the transmittal page of the Constitution and the Resolutions of the Constitutional Convention, and the National Archives will make it available to public viewing for a week in Washington, D.C., starting today.

The Constitution Resolution was signed by George Washington and it includes the instructions about how the Constitution should be ratified and put into effect.

How important was the document? Here’s a passage from a blog written last week from the National Archives discussing the letter.

“Without the resolution, the Constitution, in the words of James Madison, ‘was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people,’” said the Archives.

The document also includes the instructions for how the first presidential election should be conducted, as well as the critical process of how the new government should replace the one established by the Articles Of Confederation.

The event marks a celebration of the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on Monday. The Letter of Transmittal can be seen in the East Rotunda Gallery in the National Archives Building.

The page now lives in an oxygen-free encasement along with the original Declaration of Independence, the four-page Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Archives started work on the current restoration in 1999.

The National Archives also release a video that shows the detailed restoration process involved with the Transmittal page.

A bigger historical mystery is the whereabouts of a sixth page that accompanied the Constitution and Washington’s instructions to Congress. It was transcribed at the time, but it was also meant as a private letter.

Washington penned his own personal note to Arthur St. Clair, the president of the existing Congress. The letter explained why the Constitutional convention met and the rationale behind the new, stronger government.

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest,” Washington wrote. “We hope and believe; that [the Constitution] may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.”

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-extra-page-shown-public-first-time-143606312.html
 
Are we in the end times of trust in government?

Are we in the end times of trust in government?
Posted by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake on February 7, 2013 at 6:30 am

It’s no secret that the American public views its elected officials with some combination of disgust, disappointment and distrust. Congress’s approval rating is in used-car-salesman territory, and with every legislative crisis it dips, somewhat amazingly, lower.

But, as bad things are, there is a tendency to assume that the current attitude toward the federal government is sort of how it always has been. Except that it hasn’t always been like that.

This chart is taken from a broader interactive project from the Pew Research Center that aims to document public attitudes toward the federal government from 1958 to the present day. It documents the percentage of people who said they trust the government in Washington either “just about always” or “most of the time.”

There are any number of interesting storylines in the chart – for much of the 1960s, more than seven in 10 people expressed considerable trust in the government in Washington! — but what struck us most was how the current low period of government trust is, unlike past periods of distrust, seemingly unconnected to an obvious event or events.

When public trust in government collapsed from 53 percent in 1972 to 36 percent in November 1974, it made sense. The Watergate investigation, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, was just the sort of ugly — and prolonged — episode to make public perception of government erode in a relatively rapid manner.

Ditto the historically low trust ratings reached in Pew polling in the early 1990s, as a series of congressional scandals — with the House Bank scandal being the most prominent — produced large amounts of media coverage focused on what the heck politicians were doing in the nation’s capital.

But the recent drop, which began in earnest after the goodwill toward Washington surrounding its actions in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks wore off, seems disconnected to any single notable event. There have been a fair share of legislative standoffs and scandals in recent years, but nothing nearly as heavily covered or broad as Watergate or the House bank.

Instead, it appears to be a political death — or at least bloodletting — by a thousand cuts. No one event is to blame. Rather, something even more corrosive to government appears to be happening — a steady and growing belief that politicians in Washington are simply not to be trusted.

(It’s worth noting that this decline in trust in government has corresponded with a decline in trust in other major pillars of American life — from the financial sector to sports. Thanks a lot Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire!)

The depressing reality of Pew’s long-term trend on trust in government is that there is no obvious cure for what ails the body politic these days. Without a clear cause, a sure solution isn’t available. It’s possible that we are simply in a new era in which trust in institutions like our government simply won’t ever approach — or come close to approaching — its historic highs.

The end times of trust in government may well be upon us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-we-in-the-end-times-of-trust-in-government/
 
A revolution in the works?

A revolution in the works?
by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, USA TODAY
Published: 02/04/2013 05:23pm

Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly they're unhappy with the government. According to a Pew poll released last week, more than half of Americans view government as a threat to their freedom.

And it's not just Republicans unhappy with Obama, or gun owners afraid that the government will take their guns: 38% of Democrats, and 45% of non-gun owners, see the government as a threat.

Add this to another recent poll in which only 22% of likely voters feel America's government has the "consent of the governed," and you've got a pretty depressing picture -- and a recipe for potential trouble. Governments operate, to a degree, by force, but ultimately they depend on legitimacy. A government that a majority views as a threat, and that only a small minority sees as enjoying the consent of the governed, is a government with legitimacy problems.

I suspect that these issues also have something to do with the increasing bitterness and polarization of today's politics, but not the way you might think. As science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle wrote in 2008, "We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It's worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time -- not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine -- and it will probably never be true again."

That captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. So it was after the 2004 election when liberals talked revolution, and so again after 2012, when secession petitions flooded the White House.

There are two possible ways to address this problem. One is to elect people that everyone trusts. The problem with that is that there aren't any politicians that everyone trusts -- and, alas, if there were, the odds are good that such trust would turn out to be misplaced.

The other option is to place less power within the political sphere. The less power the government has, the less incentive for corruption, and the less that can go wrong when the government misbehaves. The problem with this approach is that the political class likes a powerful government -- it's one of the reasons that the Washington, DC, area, where much of the political class lives, is beginning to resemble the Capital City in The Hunger Games, prospering while the rest of the country suffers.

The political class usually gets its way, because it thinks about politics -- and its own position -- every waking moment, while the rest of America thinks about these things only in fits and starts, in between living everyday life. But if there's an upside to the increasing unhappiness that most Americans feel toward the political class, it's that maybe it means people are paying closer attention.

What's next? In my constitutional law class the other day, most of my students took the position that they would be unlikely to see a Constitutional Convention in their lifetimes. I'm not so sure. Last year I spoke at a Harvard Law School conference on holding a new Constitutional Convention, one which had participants from all sorts of ideological positions ranging from the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street movement. (People got along surprisingly well.)

In the American system, a Constitutional Convention -- which has never been held since the Constitution was adopted -- is the last stop before revolution. It was intended as a way for the people to end-run the political establishment; if enough states request a convention, Congress has no choice but to call it, and the resulting proposals go straight to the states for ratification, bypassing Congress. It's a way to make drastic changes when the political class has blocked smaller ones.

Are we there yet? I don't think so. But we're getting closer all the time. Political class, take note.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...unhappy-government-convention-column/1887593/
 
What If the Next President Is Even Worse?

What If the Next President Is Even Worse?
By Ron Fournier | National Journal
6 hrs ago

George W. Bush in 2001 declared war on a tactic (terrorism), and empowered Big Brother to tap phones, launch drones and indefinitely imprison people without due process.

Barack Obama in 2008 declared those Bush policies an overreach, and pledged to curb drone strikes, protect media freedoms, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Instead, he escalated drone strikes and spied on the media. Gitmo is still open for its grim business.

These are facts. And yet, they are distorted by extreme and narrow-minded partisans, supporters of both Bush and Obama.

Conservatives contend that Bush single-handedly prevented a major terrorist strike after Sept. 11, 2001. They demagogue efforts to shift the pendulum back toward civil liberties. Last week, when Obama finally proposed a modest reassessment of the Bush doctrine, Sen. Saxby Chambliss claimed that the efforts "will be viewed by terrorists as a victory."

Liberals hypocritically gave Obama a pass for furthering the same policies they condemned in 2008. Criticism from the left was half-hearted and muted, compared to their Bush-era indignation. On Gitmo, left-wingers rightly blamed the GOP for blocking closure, but didn't shame Obama into using his executive authority to shutter the pit.

Some progressives even tried to justify the Obama administration's efforts to criminalize the work of a FOX News reporter. Would they be so blase about a White House targeting MSNBC?

As Leonard Downie Jr. wrote in Sunday's Washington Post, "Hardly anything seems immune from constitutionally dangerous politicking in a polarized Washington."
But that's no excuse for missing the big picture, which is this: Bush and Obama shouldn't worry you nearly as much as the next president.

Or the one after that.

Think about it, liberals. What if there is a president in your lifetime who is more conservative than Bush? What if that commander in chief is empowered, as were Bush and Obama, by a national tragedy and a compliant Congress?

Your guy Obama has armed a president-turned-zealot with dangerous powers and precedents.

Think about it, conservatives. It may be maddening to listen to Obama tie himself into knots over the balance between liberty and freedom, but what if the next Democratic president sees no limit on a commander in chief's powers? What if he or she doesn't give a whit about offending the mainstream media?

The IRS targeting conservatives is a scandal, but there is no evidence that it was directed by the White House. What if the next Democratic president publicly declared his or her political opponents a direct threat to national security, and openly deployed federal agents against them?

Before your eyes roll out of your heads, it is not unthinkable that a future U.S. president could make Bush and Obama look downright libertarian. We live in an age of rapid connectivity and hyper-celebrity, forces that create, destroy and often resurrect public figures within the lifespan of a cicada. Does the name Justin Bieber ring a bell?

How about Sarah Palin? Our culture of celebrity coupled with the public's disaffection with Washington could lead to the election of a true demagogue or reactionary. Put it this way: What if Huey Long had access to the Internet? Or even Pat Buchanan? Don't be blinded by partisanship.

Left-wingers should be fighting the abuse of executive powers at home and abroad, rather than defending them.

Right-wingers should be demanding that Obama finally carry out the promises of his speech last week, rather than demonizing them.

What about the rest of us? How do we keep the country both safe and free? We don't cede the public square to these extremists.

http://news.yahoo.com/next-president-even-worse-053014797.html
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top