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

Skip to comments.

If You Support or Sign Unconstitional Legislation, You are a Traitor
me

Posted on 03/21/2002 8:14:17 AM PST by Sir Gawain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: steve50
Tell me, why did old West card players carry Derringers?

Cheat at the game, pay the price.

Hypothetical observation, of course.

21 posted on 03/21/2002 8:51:33 AM PST by Lumberjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The politicians have been doing this crap for 40 years, not just Dems or Repubs ALL of them. the ruling class don't give a damn about us, they talk a good line, but the end result is the same.

You may have a few above the fray but they go away early. the traitors have always been there and they keep getting reelected by stupid people, and you want to know what else, WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET.

22 posted on 03/21/2002 8:55:44 AM PST by SERE_DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Good rant, but the tank is going to roll over us anyway.
23 posted on 03/21/2002 8:58:00 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
>Anyone that supports or signs unconstitutional legislation is a traitor...

Well, when the Palestinians suspect one of their own of working with the Israelis, they kill them and drag them through the streets behind a vehicle...

It's simply a practical matter.

(1) Traitors are people who get punished. (2) Nobody in the US is going to punish these politicians. (3) Therefore these politicians are not traitors.

It's as easy as 1-2-3.

The bottom line seems to be that America now is a very different place than it was 200 years ago and living in the past is only cool if you're Jethro Tull.

Mark W.

24 posted on 03/21/2002 9:02:21 AM PST by MarkWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfie
Buckley v. Valeo - 1976

How many times must men of government rule on the Constitution? The 'Constitution' is to lay out our rule over government.

Government out of control is no government at all. Ask Arafat.

26 posted on 03/21/2002 9:03:41 AM PST by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Someone emailed Neal Boortz with an idea. A 3 strikes law for politicians. Every time a politician votes for, or a governor or President signs, a piece of legislation that is ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional they get a strike. The strikes are cummulative for their entire "career." And the instant that someone gets their third strike they are instantly removed from office.

Would take a constitutional amendment no doubt, but would be interesting to see debate on the matter.

27 posted on 03/21/2002 9:03:49 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
...the damn thing isn't worth the paper its written on when 9 people, accountable to no one, are the final arbiters of its meaning.

EXACTLY CORRECT! That is precicely why all 435 congressmen, 100 Senators, and the President, are REQUIRED to swear an oath of true faith and allegiance to the Constitution EVERY time they are sworn in!

The FOUNDERS idea was that, for the most part, those nine folks would be BORED STIFF because ALL of those would be taking care to ensure that legislative assaults on the Constitution DID NOT OCCUR!!

28 posted on 03/21/2002 9:10:57 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: d14truth
The 'Constitution' is to lay out our rule over government.

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be the "Rule Book" of government!

Either it is or it isn't! There IS no middle ground IMHO!

29 posted on 03/21/2002 9:14:17 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Was that the Founder's idea? Coulda fooled me.
30 posted on 03/21/2002 9:14:21 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
If not then what IS the purpose of their Oaths???
31 posted on 03/21/2002 9:15:34 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I disagree.

Maybe on paper it makes one a traitor, but it's time for a "reality check."

1. The democrats are masters at demonizing, and the public buys much of it. This non-issue can be easily turned into an election issue this fall. Why give the dems something to pound the repubs over the head with?

2. As with many issues, it's easier to spew out deceitful ideas than to defend the truth. Abortion is a perfect example. It's so hard to reach people when they have bought the simple idea of "choice." This goes for CFR. Anyone that has donated to a non-profit (church, humane society, etc) group is part of a special interest, yet the public doesn't get this. They have bought into the myth that special interest groups are just a bunch of rich people and corporations.

3. It's a set up. Many, many people hate corporations for whatever reason (usually it's jealousy of the amount of money the CEO's make). If one doesn't vote for CFR, then one can be painted as a friend of big business. Repubs already have problems with this, and this will be salt on a wound if this idea is enforced.

Why aren't the repubs tratiors? Well, consider the situation. This country is nowhere near what it's supposed to be. Ya got a Supreme Court out of control, a congress that holds itself above others (no social security tax, etc), etc. The public is very "me" oriented and has socialistic tendancies.

This ship is slowly sinking. The dems are helping it to sink through deceit, lies, and ignorance [of the public]. If the repubs filibuster and refuse to try and dump water, the dems will just point out that repubs are actually the cause of the ship sinking! The repubs have to do what they have to do survive. If they put prinicple above trying to save the ship, the ship is gonna sink real fast, and you and I will be living in a communist / socialist state (we aren't really there yet).

I understand why they voted the way they did. It makes it a non-issue (aside from those who know this bill stinks) and gives the repubs one less issue to deal with this fall. This will make it easier to win back the Senate. THEN we can fill the courts up with conservative judges and help to stop the ship from sinking. If they are in the majority again, then they can introduce real cfr billto fix the flawed one! (like one dealing with union dues!)

32 posted on 03/21/2002 9:21:10 AM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
If You Support or Sign Unconstitional Legislation, You are a Traitor

Nice rant, but do you really want every congresscritter who votes for a law that the SCOTUS declares unconstitutional, or any President who signs such a law to be put to death for treason. I don't think so!

33 posted on 03/21/2002 9:24:56 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
You claim the right to interpret the Constitution. Maybe you need to read it first. Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

This action doesn't even come close to qualifying.

34 posted on 03/21/2002 9:26:29 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
or in adhering to their Enemies

That would be enemies of the Constitution both foreign and domestic.

35 posted on 03/21/2002 9:44:14 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
bump
36 posted on 03/21/2002 11:06:56 AM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
Actually, your comment shows that you clearly do not understand the countermajoritarian aspect of the Constitution. If you were correct and "we the people" decide what is and is not constitutional, "period," then you have just relegated us to pure democracy - a form of government that this nation has never had and never should have. We are a constitutional republic, with checks and balances and judicial review. And whether something is constitutional is determined by constitutional procedures, not the assertions of "we the people."
37 posted on 03/21/2002 11:14:36 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Your comments show that you clearly are unable to read into my comments. Our ultimate veto is the 2nd Amendment, its our trump card, its the way we keep the nation from falling into Tyranny. If the Congress legislated tomorrow that we could burn Jews in their homes, and the President signed it and the SCOTUS upheld that law, how much do your legalistic wranglings matter? They wouldn't.

People falling back on the 2nd amendment, however, would provide quite a check on that law though, wouldn't it?

Understand now?

38 posted on 03/21/2002 11:21:18 AM PST by Lumberjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
Is it your contention that if a group of citizens overthrew the government in an armed uprising - assuming, of course, that the arms that these citizens bear according to their second amendment rights are sufficient to trump the rather considerable arms possessed by the gov't - because that group of armed citizens disagreed with an interpretation of the constitutionality of a law made by any or all of the branches of the government in accordance with constitutional procedures - THAT would be a "constitutional" manner of properly interpreting that law? No sir, that would be a coup d'etat. If you want to exercise the power of citizenship, vote the bastards that passed the law out of office and elect some bastards who will uphold the constitution. But don't tell me that I can live with your interpretation at the business end of your gun barrel. That would be a rather Maoist approach to things, dontcha think?
39 posted on 03/21/2002 11:31:15 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Try reading some Jefferson and get back to me when you actually understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be a tool for arming all available men to serve in the militia and also to be a check on a government that thought it could abuse its citizens. The FF's were quite clear on this.

"My particular interpretation"? So I just imagined that I had a right to free speech?

Like I said, get out of the law books and read some of the words of the Founding Fathers in regards to the 2nd Amendment. And I appologize in advance if they scare you as much as my words have.

40 posted on 03/21/2002 11:34:50 AM PST by Lumberjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

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