Skip to comments.
Selective Constitutional Deafness
American Thinker ^
| 6 May 2013
| Selwyn Duke
Posted on 05/06/2013 6:15:11 AM PDT by Politically Correct
Kansas governor Sam Brownback heard something recently. He received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder stating that Kansas' newly enacted legislation prohibiting government agents from enforcing federal gun laws in the state "directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional." Unconstitutional, Eric? My, how antebellum of you.
Meanwhile, the South Carolina House just passed a law criminalizing the enforcement of ObamaCare within its state borders, a move that critics will also attack with talk of the Supremacy Clause.
Speaking of supremacy, AG Holder also told Brownback that the feds would litigate if necessary "to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law," which means that the case would end up before the Supreme Court.
So now the administration that created ObamaCare, refuses to enforce immigration law, illegally bypassed the Senate to make recess appointments, and has a DOJ that won't offer whites voting-rights protections cites constitutionalism in defense of its agenda. This is a bit like serial-killing abortionist Kermit Gosnell seeking to avoid the death penalty by preaching the sanctity of life.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
TOPICS: Education; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: constitution; courts; liberty
Good article.
DRESS (Defy, Resist, Evade, Smuggle, Sabotage)
To: Politically Correct
The world is turning upside down and communists are everywhere posing as democrats.
2
posted on
05/06/2013 6:20:14 AM PDT
by
kindred
(Jesus Christ is the Lord God and Messiah of Israel, a present help in time of trouble.)
To: Politically Correct
3
posted on
05/06/2013 6:24:17 AM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Travis McGee
4
posted on
05/06/2013 6:31:17 AM PDT
by
Politically Correct
(A member of the rabble in good standing)
To: Politically Correct
I have a ton of them.
5
posted on
05/06/2013 6:33:22 AM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Politically Correct
Agree - very, very good article - last two paragaraphs are the bottom line:
"A prerequisite for any civilized endeavor -- be it a game or government -- is the necessary degree of civility on the part of those involved. Barring this, the wise move is to walk away and, in no uncertain terms, serve notice that you won't play until there is agreement to follow the rules. And if your opponents are so intent on domination that they follow you outside the ring to fight, then you know it's a back-alley brawl and proceed accordingly. Remember that when people will yield to neither reason nor law, there is only one thing left that can make them yield.
What we often forget when preaching constitutionalism is that the principle is conditional. As our second president John Adams explained, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." "Moral and religious" describe neither the leftists controlling our federal government nor those voting them into power. So love it though we may, our constitution is no more suited to much of modern America than it is to the Taliban. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we'll free ourselves from the shackles of the left's selective law just as it long ago freed itself from the guide rails of all law."
6
posted on
05/06/2013 7:13:17 AM PDT
by
plsjr
(<>< what mankind "knows" is by trial and error; only the CREATOR really knows)
To: plsjr
Peaceful secession is about the best we can hope and pray for.
7
posted on
05/06/2013 7:24:44 AM PDT
by
Politically Correct
(A member of the rabble in good standing)
To: plsjr
And if your opponents are so intent on domination that they follow you outside the ring to fight, then you know it's a back-alley brawl and proceed accordingly. I favor a slight variation on the Golden Rule: treat others slightly better than they deserve, but only slightly. Treating people too much better than they deserve is apt to be more harmful than treating them worse. Unfortunately, the situations in which it is easiest to treat people much better than they deserve are also often the situations where it is the most harmful. Further, I think leftists are oblivious to even the possibility that treating people too well might be harmful.
8
posted on
05/06/2013 4:27:20 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Renounce Covetousness.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson