Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trebb
I have a SERIOUS problem with a Mayor using his authority to mount a Constitutional challenge.

How would the people cheering this Mayor feel if another Mayor was an ardent 2nd Amendment believer and starting handing out guns in from of the airport to passengers?

Civil disobedience to set up a test case I understand, but this is a blatant abuse of the authority of the Mayor. It needs to be stopped before we have government officials all over the country doing whatever they feel like with no respect for the law.
20 posted on 02/17/2004 12:50:44 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: You Dirty Rats
Laws Be Damned
30 posted on 02/17/2004 1:00:00 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: You Dirty Rats
It's a usurpation of powers question as to the definition of SF City and County government as well. The Mayor does not have the authority to create law - that is the purview of the Board of Supes.


Not to mention the people of CA voted and made law that states: marriage is between a man and a woman.

Newsom is a grand standing political opportunist who is reaching for much higher office.
35 posted on 02/17/2004 1:05:25 PM PST by BlessedByLiberty (Respectfully submitted,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: You Dirty Rats
I have a SERIOUS problem with a Mayor using his authority to mount a Constitutional challenge.

How would the people cheering this Mayor feel if another Mayor was an ardent 2nd Amendment believer and starting handing out guns in from of the airport to passengers?

Civil disobedience to set up a test case I understand, but this is a blatant abuse of the authority of the Mayor. It needs to be stopped before we have government officials all over the country doing whatever they feel like with no respect for the law.

As I pointed out here, it's not "civil disobedience", it's civil war:

[in reply to another poster, who termed it "anarchy"]

No, it's not anarchy, nor is it "civil disobedience", which is the term they initially applied to their action.

Anarchy is the absence of government, every man for himself. A government official, issuing licenses is anathema to the concept of "anarchy". ("Hi, I'd like to sign up to be an anarchist. Where can I find the rulebook, and how much will the license cost me?")

It's not "civil disobedience" either, but for different reasons. Civil disobedience is by definition the populace rebelling against the state. When you have one unit of government squaring off against another unit of government, it's not "civil disobedience" by any stretch of the language.

So if it's not "anarchy", and it's not "civil disobedience", then what is it?

It's civil war of course.

How it ends up will determine not so much what kind of future we have as a nation, but whether we've got much of a future at all. Rome is falling, version 2.0.

Please note that I am not engaging in either hyperbole or a term of art when I used the expression "civil war" to describe their actions. I was being as clinical and accurate as possible. One unit of government has decided to break away from the rest of the country, and operate in complete defiance to the rule of law, to which it is officially subject.

San Francisco has in a very real way decided to secede from the USA. How the USA responds to this act of civil war will determine our future.

I will not be surprised, though, if the response boils down to surrender.


76 posted on 02/17/2004 3:51:55 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson