Constitutional Conservatives
The Republican Party now wants to officially investigate repealing the 14th Amendment through Congressional Hearing. Before we actually get to what is in the 14th Amendment, it is important to realize what this means. Sarah Palin and every other Republican candidate seeking the Teabagger (i.e. the Republican base) vote have declared themselves to be “constitutional conservatives.” Indeed, the opposition to health care reform was based, disingeniously but all the same, on it being unconstitutional. Therefore, I am to assume that conservatives across the land in opposition to Obama want to protect and enforce the prohibitions and protections embodied in the Constitution.
But that that shtick cannot overpower their bigotry. And when the Constitution gets in the way of their bigotry, the Constitution gets thrown overboard, as it has been many times before whenever it got in the way of “conservative” ideology. So we can now stop pretending that conservatives care about the Constitution. To them, it is nothing more than a campaign prop to be put in the closet when it becomes inconvenient.
Back to the text of the 14th Amendment. Pay attention Tea Baggers, because I know for a fact that this will be the first time in life that you have ever read the 14th Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first section is the most important to the current debate. The remaining sections had to do with cleaning up the old traitorous bastard Confederacy, such as forbidding former Confederates from serving in any level of government, reducing the representation of a State in Congress should it deny the right to vote to any man 21 years or older (this was to punish the denial of the vote to black men (don’t worry women, your rights come later in the 19th Amendment, but I am sure the GOP will want to repeal that too)), and to disclaim liability for the debt of the old treasonous Confederacy. They are no longer germane to our current politics, unless of course the Teabaggers rise in violent rebellion and then are slaughtered by the United States (as they would be, as our Army is much much bigger than the Teabaggers), then the other sections become relevant again, as the surviving Teabaggers would then be forbidden by the Constitution to hold any government office anywhere in the United States. Ah, it almost makes you wish for a rebellion, doesn’t it. I digress.
Let’s go back to that troubling (to conservatives) first section. It is comprised of several important clauses that establish our very basic rights as citizens of this country. Because, before the the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the rights we are so accustomed to from the Bill of Rights (i.e. the religious freedom, free speech, free association, the right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures, the right against excessive bail, the right to a fair and public trial, the right to bear arms, the right against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination) were not binding on the states. Meaning the state could freely abuse your federal citizenship rights if it was allowed under the state constitution. What the 14th Amendment did is make the Bill of Rights and all constitutional rights and privileges binding on the states (with a minor exception of the right to be indicted by a grand jury). So when the first clause of the second sentence of Section 1 says ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it says that the states cannot fuck with your rights under the Constitution.
The second and third clauses of the second sentence of Section 1 provide the Equal Protection and Due Process clause. “Nor shall any state deprive any person [notice that they do not say citizen here, that is important] of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I will get to why the reference to “person” and not “citizen” is important in a moment. But first, the Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken, like having a notice of eminent domain and a hearing after a reasonable time to determine whether the government can seize your property. This is the clause that has been used to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, which I have talked about above. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause provides the basis for ending government discrimination and it was used to decide Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.
So when the conservatives in our country talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, this is what they will be repealing. And I suspect many conservatives are just fine with that. Rights of the people have never really been a main concern to the modern day conservative. Sure, they love their 2nd Amendment rights, but the 4th and 8th Amendments mean nothing to them. And really, neither does the 1st, but I will get to that in a second too.
But to be fair, what conservatives are really talking about when they scream “Repeal the 14th” is the first sentence of Section 1. That sentence says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The meaning is quite clear. You become a citizen of this country if you are born here or if you become naturalized (i.e. a legal immigrant that goes through the naturalization process to become a citizen). This clause was historically important in Constitutional history, as it explicitly overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, a case that conservatives use as a dog whistle code word, most memorably George W. Bush in the 2000 debates, concerning abortion. That decision had ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. How that relates to abortion I cannot fathom, but anti-choicers love to equate abortion and slavery. But that is another whole can of worms. Needless to say, the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned Dredd Scott, and held that any person born here in this country is a citizen.
That constitutional provision now gets in the way in the immigration debate. For years, some have said that “anchor babies” should not be granted citizenship just because they are born here. Well, the problem with that was that the revered Constitution grants them citizenship. This is not an issue of an interpretation of the words. For example, in the second sentence where the reference is to “persons” and not citizen, there is a constant debate, and a rightful one, as to what the framers of this Amendment meant. What is a person? Well, the Supreme Court has held that a person can mean more than just a citizen. It means any human being, whether citizen or noncitizen. That is why we liberals get so upset about torture of a citizen or noncitizen, because it is unconstitutional. A person also means a corporation, which is why corporations get to donate money to political causes and why they get to be taxed. (As an aside, this is not a reference to the recent Citizens United opinion by the Supreme Court that held that corporations had an unlimited right to donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates and causes, in opposition to the Court-upheld limitations on actual human citizens, who are limited by an Court-upheld statute to certain limits (currently $2500 per candidate per race)). No, the words of the first sentence are not open to interpretation. A person who is born here is a Citizen. Case closed.
So before we proceed with this debate, it is a undisputed fact that those who want to change the Constitution to better fit their beliefs are not “constitutional” conservatives anymore. And when you advocate and defend torture, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that Muslims, if they want to remain citizens, should be forced to convert to Christianity, in clear violation of the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that a Mosque should not be built in New York City, in violation of not only the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause but also the First Amendment right against the establishment of religion clause, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that there should be warrantless searches because, hey, you have nothing to hide, in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say someone should be executed without the bother of a trial, as a Republican just did, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you deny the right of marriage (a fundamental right recognized as part of our right to privacy) to any person, you are not a constitutional conservative. And I could go on and on and on and on.
You are anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives. Which ever works for you. Got that?
Good.
Now lets move on to the substance of this “Repeal the 14th” movement. So you want to scratch out that first sentence to appease your bigotry against brown people. What are you going to replace it with?
“All persons born to citizens or naturalized in the United States?” Well, I can see one problem with that right off the bat. What happens when a couple legally immigrates to this country, but before they are naturalized as citizens themselves, they have a baby? Under that language the baby can never be a citizen until he or she goes through the naturalization process him or herself 18 years or more later. I can tell you right now that this will be seen as an unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right to privacy, in that it places an undue burden on reproduction or procreation. And surely conservatives will not want to be seen as anti-family. But then again, they are happy to be seen as anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise), so who knows.
While we are at it, can we strike redheads from being citizens? How about short people? How about people who disagree with our political views? How about a racial minority? Indeed, since this very important first sentence overturned Dredd Scott, repealing the Amendment to strike this first sentence automatically means Dredd Scott is now good law, which of course means that blacks are no longer citizens of the United States.
This debate over who is a citizen is absurd. Indeed, for certain conservatives, it is contradictory, for they were all hot and bothered just a short while ago about President Obama being BORN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!! And now, all of a sudden, being born in this country is of no importance?
This debate is a distraction. And it is borne (pun intended) from the bigotry of conservatives.
They have to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
Funny how you criticize republickins for wanting to ridiculously amend the Constitution, but nary a peep from anyone here as Obama commits the same egregious civil liberties violations as Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Gonzo.
IOKIYD, apparently.
Police State (D) 2010 = Police State (R) 2005
That is a good criticism, A1. And if Obama is authorizing warrantless searches and seizures, he is just as wrong as Bush was.
I didn’t read your dissertation because, really? It’s entirely too long for a girl with the attention span of a gnat on a double espresso (especially one who has realized that no amount of debating will cure what’s wrong with our government.) I’m sure it’s chock-full of facts sprinkled with a few distortions/exaggerations, out-of-context quotes and vicious personal attacks against those who disagree with you because, let’s face it, you’re about as formulaic as a Tom Cruise flick. No worries, tho, because I’m confident you’ll be carried off on the cyber shoulders of the the intellectual dilettantes who will undoubtedly laud it as a piece of journalistic genius.
I did, however, catch the very last sentence and was thinking that perhaps you could have ended it at ‘bigotry’, as I refuse to believe that your rabid partisanship has actually led you to believe that all conservatives are bigots. Because that would just be stupid, and I know you’re not stupid.
You deserve no reply Dominique, since you did not actually read or learn anything. So like a vapid Teabagger, revel in your ignorance and be gone.
Seriously, people like Dominique are what is wrong with this country. If something is not distilled to a five second soundbite on Fox News, she not only can’t understand, she doesn’t want to.
It just occurred to me. Dominique is Sarah Palin.
” And if Obama is authorizing warrantless searches and seizures, he is just as wrong as Bush was.”
Apparently you missed Eric Holder saying that the “Justice Department,” under his leadership was going to EXPAND the warrantless wiretapping program.
It’s on youtube.
Then on that issue he is just as wrong as Bush was.
Perhaps you’re right. People like me are the problem. Not a corrupt government in the pocket of big business. Not politicians who are more interested in greater personal gain than in the greater good. Not a stupid electorate that falls prey to tag lines and pretty smiles. Yup. It’s people like me.
Meanwhile, people like you keep blathering on about what’s wrong with the world and it’s really making a difference! I mean, things have gotten so much better since you started pointing out that it’s all the other side’s fault. I can feel the winds of change blowing through my hair. So refreshing!
I only wish I was Sarah Palin. I’d have a much nicer house and better glasses.
Yes, people like you. Dom, you freely admit that you cannot be bothered to actually read the post you are commenting on because it is too long for you. So why the fuck are you here? It is like you are proud to be ignorant. And that is why you are like Sarah Palin.
Until you read the post, your comments are now spam, and will be deleted as such.
@Dominique – if you were St. Sarah, you also have implants and a bastard grandchild.
DD – excellent post!
Dominique, if you were Sarah Palin you’d also have (in your words) a “very valuable vagina.” At least, that is how you described Palin’s when she was McInsane’s running mate and you were “fascinated” with her.
You do know how to turn a phrase.
Boy, you sure are replying a lot to someone not deserving of a reply.
Nice MJ! Implants and a bastard grandchild! I had a bastard daughter once, does that count?
Obama is also authorizing assassinations of American citizens suspected of being terrorists.
Police State (D) 2010 = Police State (R) 2005
That’s very true, A1. My vagina is totally on the discount rack. Speaking of racks, I’d love to have her implants (or Nancy Pelosi’s, for that matter.)
Unfortunately, only the glasses are within my reach. I’m totally thinking about getting them.
I am glad that you took that as the complement in which it was intended. 🙂
The 14th must be reviewed and evaluated because the Democrats have no plan for Border Security so there must be allegations made against the other side.
The truth be told if we had Mexico’s immigration policy and immigration control procedures then there would be no issue but as Democrats there must be maximum rhetoric and little concrete policy.
“Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.”
For Mo Better Immigration go to:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/
I just love the new Republican meme that to be Americans, Americans must be more like the Saudi Arabians (i.e. we must follow the Saudi’s lack of religious freedom per Newt Gingrich) or Mexicans.
Being American is no longer sufficient to be a real American. And guess who are Americans? People born here. Tough shit, but that is what is in the Constitution. If you oppose the Constitution, that is fine, Earl Warren. But recognize that you are supporting an unconstitutional argument.
Finally, I find it ironic that you choose the name Earl Warren. You do realize he was an evil Liberal Chief Justice that decided that blacks were entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, correct?
Absolutely, A1. This site definitely needs a little injection of humor. Even a den of vipers needs a little giggle from time to time. 😉
why would we give a flying FUCK what Mexico has for an immigration law?? or anyone else for that matter
Last time I checked this was the US – what did we suddenly become a copy-cat nation – OK on with the Burquas!!
FOR pETES SAKE – CONTRIBUTE or go away
now, that being said – has anyone actually read the congressional debate and record on the 14th – if not I suggest you do so
the dimwit R’s are saying that the 14th was never inteended to cover the children of forgeiners, only slaves – odd that, as the gentlemen from CA SPECIFICALLY goes on at length regarding the Chinese and the invasion and flood of them teaming over our shores…sound vaguely familiar???
NOw incase you have not heard S Lindsey Graham is crafting a new immigration law that includes this horrible thing – children bornto undocs have no citizenship
nice – lets attack the children – our own future – out own future citizen
trust me on this – its my field – and its gonna get a whole lot uglier….
And therein lies one of the massive contradictions at the heart of not only the Teabagger Temper Tantrum Movement, but conservatism as a whole. They rant and rave about their adherence to the Constitution, then proceed to throw it under the bus when they’re confronted with an issue that they don’t like. You see, conservatives don’t really love the Constitution. At all. They hate it. They’re terrified of it. They fear practically all of the liberties that it actually allows, so they do their best to suppress those liberties, in the name of protecting them. It’s cowardice posing as patriotism.
Earl is right on the money. I sit on the court now and as a wise Latina woman who has been deciding public policy as an unelected activist Judge the Mexican Law is very tough and would go a long way to stop illegal immigration.
America is a great country where we can jump over the border and be abused like slaves and then drop our kids on you with Medicaid and then we get to vote for Comrade Obama.
I am so glad the US has such a dimwitted immigration policy, I mean who would want to stay in Mexico? Not me, but I do like Salsa music and burritos.
aww, some racist teabag is auditioning for the TeaParty express.
Hey loser, your leader already tried this game and failed.
Just to be sure I have this right, Dom’s criticism is that your efforts aren’t changing the world. Her efforts, meanwhile, consist of sniping at your efforts. Which makes her what, exactly? If you’re a gnat on an elephant’s ass, she’d be something even smaller on the ass of the gnat, right?
This process may be complicated for the Tea Party but please give it a try:
1)Choose industry filled with undocumented workers stealing American jobs, something like Agriculture.
2)Go to OpenSecrets and discover where the campaign money is from Ag business is going.
3)Explain again who is serious about securing our borders.
I stopped reading Dom’s comment when she said “I didn’t read this post because it was too long, but….” After that, her words are said for nothing but her vanity. So I really don’t care about Dom’s criticism, because it is based in ignorance. She can go lesbo it up with Sarah Palin for all I care, since she loves her so much.
How far Dom has fallen.
Didnt she used to support Hillary? Sarah Palin is the Snookie to Hillary’s…… well, Hillary Clinton. (just with saggier boobs)
How does it feel Dom, to throw away pride, and decency, and respect for a milfy moron from the great white north?
Guys, can we please cool it with the lesbo, boobs comments? Very insulting – it also does nothing to advance your points.
Thank you.
Larry Johnson (toolbag) has become Dominique’s new daddy.
(not to offend Pandora)
Interesting, isn’t it, that dissent is met by insults, misogyny, and homophobia from all these “good liberals”?
to be honest, neither does “teabagger”, or “conservative” or any other slur we use for the Right wing RepubliKKKan party.
Dom and Sarah Palin seem like the shallow unintelligent type who would really take something like that seriously….. after all, pointing out facts and contradictions to their inane tripe doesn’t usually work.
that said, if a line was crossed i present myself before thee and beg thy forgiveness.
Comment by Aoine on 3 August 2010 at 11:01 pm:
why would we give a flying FUCK what Mexico has for an immigration law?? or anyone else for that matter
Last time I checked this was the US – what did we suddenly become a copy-cat nation – OK on with the Burquas!!
* * * * * * *
Odd — usually we hear liberals insisting that the US needs to go with the consensus of foreign law. I guess that is only when doing so is the only way to get the result that liberals want.
I apologize Pandora. I was actually trying to be funny with the “lesbo it up” line. I failed. But I will not apologize for insulting Dominique in other ways. She gives as good as she gets. And that is not misogyny, unless you believe women can never be criticized for their statements and political beliefs.
“Odd — usually we hear liberals insisting that the US needs to go with the consensus of foreign law. I guess that is only when doing so is the only way to get the result that liberals want.”
well it may appear that way, but Liberals usually want to follow examples of countries that aren’t bordering on 3rd world. If KKKonservatives would stop trying to emulate bad countries, maybe your ideas wouldn’t be mocked so harshly by educated and enlightened people….. We’ll play one of your songs, Ringo…. just as soon as ya write a good one.
“usually we hear liberals insisting that the US needs to go with the consensus of foreign law.”
You mean foreign law like the Ten Commandments? Or just certain foreign laws?
truth be told – gravity does take over after a certain age….for both genders
but, then again – who really wants to be “ahem” upright and perkey at 70?
humor folks – humor – no insults intended – I’m in the saggy club too
Yeah, A. Price. The only example I can think of where Liberals wanted “to follow other countries’ laws” is when we pointed out that Europe and Canada had national healthcare systems and the world did not end in their countries.
But even then we did not want to follow foreign law, we wanted to follow the example, and craft our own law to provide national healthcare. That is quite different from Newt Gingrich explicitly saying we need to follow Saudi Arabia’s religious laws where they forbid the building of churchs and from some commenters suggestions that we follow Mexico’s immigration laws.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that Mexico can be as tough as they want in their immigration law because the law will never be applied, for who immigrates to Mexico illegally?
maybe that’s the point. Conservatives (used here as a slur) want to turn the country into a place where people dont WANT to flee to…. see the south park episode where the men got in a pile and started screwin’
MILF – Moron I’d Like to Forget (h/t to Bill Maher)
Actually, Mexico has had a huge problem with illegal immigration, especially from Guatemala.
How quickly repubs forget they were running the show for 8 of the last 10 years and look where we are! For some reason was reading posts on “Delaware Tomorrow” and now feel need to take a shower and have a drink. And liberals are the radicals???
Conservative Reasoning , describes it to a TEA but doesn’t explain it.
brooke
actually Mexico does have a huge problem – but it is not folks from Guatemala – its with the Cartels
trust me – the people from Guatemala are just passing thru – they have more of an issue with Chinese and Brazilians actually – also passing thru, just not as quickly – and expatriated Americans as well
funny thing – all the Mexican nationals that chosse to take their American born children with them?? well those children are see as illegal immigrants in Mexicao as they where not born there
now ain’t that a kick – so shoe on the other foot….there are many undocumented Americans living in Mexico
isn’t it fun looking in from the other side??
Comment by anon 11:50 am:
“How quickly repubs forget they were running the show for 8 of the last 10 years”
They’re still running things. One of which is Obomba.
Since your diving deep into the Constitution can you find me the part where it says anything about the Federal Goverment being involved in:
Education
Building roads
Retirement
Health Care
Owning Railroads
Owning Car Companies
Taking money from one party and giving it to a third party
Using the Military without approval of Congress
Taxing the citizens of one State and giving it to another State
Borrowing money from one County and giving it to another Country and sticking the citizens of the U.S with the principle and interest (Cash for Clunkers)
Fair point about using the military without approval of Congress.
But the answer to the rest of your list, where the Federal Government may be involved, is found in Section 7 (Legislative Process):
(wow, that is really painful writing for something so important)
and in Section 8
That was easy.
John Galt….
The Commerce Clause of Article 1 has been held to grant Congress the power to regulate many, many things if they have any affect on interstate commerce. Education, Building roads, Retirement, Health Care, and Railroads all fall under that rubric.
Otherwise, Anon is right.
I just love how “constitutional conservatives” and libertarians have to ask these questions. Do they ever read the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent that interprets the Constitution? Either they have not, or they do and do not agree with it. If it is the latter, that is fine, but they cannot pretend there is no constitutional authority for what they oppose, because pretending as such is akin to lying.
Also, with respect to Congress’ exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war, the War Powers Act enacted by Congress and signed by President Nixon allows the executive to wage war without the prior approval of Congress, with the only congressional restraint on the President’s authority being the power of the purse (i.e. Congress could just cut off all funding for the war). I personally believe that it is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has yet to strike it down. Thus, I won’t pretend that there is no constitutional authority for the War Powers Act until such time as the Supreme Court says so.
Mayor Bloomberg quoted free speech when he defended the mosque near Ground Zero and said Muslims dies there also. Got to love the Bill of Rights but only when it hurts everyday Americans.
Yup, 10 of them who hijacked planes and flew into the buildings at 500 mph were Muslim.
Also for the billionaire fool who has changed parties three times in 10 years he wanted a more tolerant society. Another Liberal who is demented and crazy although I know that is redundant.
this moron again……
I really hope you dont expect anyone to take you seriously with your failure-attempt-at-wit, Teabag Express username demonstrated total lack of common sense.
anon,
It may easy to a simpleton such as yourself, let me explain.
Article 1, Section 7 refers to the Federal Government making laws allowed by the Constitution. If the Federal Government could make any law it wanted, then what need to we have for the Constitution?
The Constitution granted the Federal Government few and well defined powers
Let me explain further:
In Federalist #33 http://federali.st/33 Hamilton addressed the concern over the wording of Section #7 that you and your cohorts misunderstand.
Hamilton states that the Federal Government would be the same with or without this section since the new government is constrained BY the Constitution “……..it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.
What Hamilton is addressing is your misunderstanding of Section #7, that this clause somehow null and voids the rest of the Constitution, it doesn’t.
Hamilton goes on to say “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.”
To all of you who have never heard of the Federalist Papers http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp (let alone read them) they were quoted in 300 Supreme Court decisions.
Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that “the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained.”
So, based on your new understanding of Section 7
Where does the Federal Govement get its authority to be involved in:
Education
Building roads
Retirement
Health Care
Owning Railroads
Owning Car Companies
Taking money from one party and giving it to a third party
Using the Military without approval of Congress
Taxing the citizens of one State and giving it to another State
Borrowing money from one County and giving it to another Country and sticking the citizens of the U.S with the principle and interest (Cash for Clunkers)
Delaware Dem “Also, with respect to Congress’ exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war, the War Powers Act enacted by Congress and signed by President Nixon allows the executive to wage war without the prior approval of Congress….”
A Constitution is a contract between the People and its Goverment.
The Goverment CANNOT change the contract without approval from the People (ie Amendments).
The Constitution places no prior restraint on what bills Congress may pass. The Federal Government can make any law it bloody well pleases. If your representative thinks it is unconstitutional, he can argue that in the floor debate as a reason to vote against it. Or if the President thinks it is unconstitutional, he can use that as a reason not to sign it.
The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional or not based on a challenge to the law – the key word being LAW. But the Court can only rule on laws, not bills.
The Supreme Court is where the action is for deciding constitutionality – not Congress. If you are so hot to declare three quarters of our government unconstitutional – get busy writing briefs instead of wetting them.
That is correct, anon. And a damn good last line.
I love it when people quote the Federalist papers as law.
Nemski, I love even more that, like the bible and the constitution, they pick and choose the FP as well. As in #10, which pretty much fits baggers to a Tea.
Hey – wise Latina Woman:
remember those two BIG bombs we dropped on Nagasaki and Heroshima?
After the Japanese had sued for peace?? How many civilians died??
yup – perfect we are not…. the Cordoba Institute has been 2 blks from World Trade for 29 years – their land ,their money
and the People of the Burrough have voted to approve it – I thought your whole stance was the will of the people??
so where is your standing on this?? except you are talking out your anal orifice
I am running for Congress as a Libertarian. I am a Constitutional Conservative and I agree with everything you said. If the language were a bit kinder, I would have linked it directly on my website. (But hey, I’m busy trying to split the conservative vote.)
It is tough when you have to convince people that they aren’t really constitutional conservative, they are socially conservative and restrictive.
You should have heard McConnell quoting the Federalist Papers this afternoon during the debate on Justice Kagan. He made it sound like it was the law of the land. What a douche bag.
“While they were waiting for that time to come, these same men used their legislative positions to hurt the administration instead of working for the good of their states or their party. Plumer jotted down on February 10, 1806, “Today at our lodgings, Mr. Pickering of the Senate and Colonel Talmadge (of Connecticut) of the House said they were in favor of a measure, ‘because they believed it would embarrass Mr. Jefferson, the President.’ Mr. Tracy of the Senate and Mr. Betton (of New Hampshire) of the House, today said ‘they voted in favor of a claim upon the Treasury of the U.S. not so much because they thought it was just, as that they wished to drain the Treasury.'” William Plumer’s Memorandum of Proceedings in the U.S. Senate 1803-1807, ed. Everett Brown, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1923), pp. 33-34.
As go today’s Republicans…. so went the Federalists… 🙂