Posted on 03/21/2002 8:14:17 AM PST by Sir Gawain
The time has passed for allowing the desecration of the U.S. Constitution to continue. There are traitors among us. There are politicians right now who would make themselves kings if there were means to do it, and their attack on the spirit of our country is no longer cloaked in secrecy. Now is not the time to say, "How did we get here?" Now is the time to say, "How do we get back to where we should be?" Make no mistake—we as Americans are to blame for repeatedly voting these traitors into office—and now it is our duty to fix what we screwed up.
I will vote for politicians with which I do not agree one hundred percent, however, I will NOT vote for any politician that is diametrically opposed to any principle of the Founding Fathers. What would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson think of the attacks on the Second Amendment, and now the attack on the First with this so-called "campaign finance reform"? What would the Founders think of Americans that continuously voted these traitors into office? Who would have dared approach President Washington with a bill attempting to regulate firearms or speech, or any other God-given freedom?
Here is the list of treasonous bastards that voted for CFR:
From the Senate:
| YEAs --- 60 | ||
| Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) |
Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) |
Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Thompson (R-TN) Torricelli (D-NJ) Warner (R-VA) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR) |
|
From the House:
|
--- AYES 240 --- |
|
| Abercrombie | Green (TX) | Napolitano |
| Ackerman | Greenwood | Neal |
| Allen | Grucci | Oberstar |
| Andrews | Gutierrez | Obey |
| Baca | Hall (OH) | Olver |
| Baird | Harman | Ortiz |
| Baldacci | Hastings (FL) | Osborne |
| Baldwin | Hill | Ose |
| Barrett | Hinchey | Owens |
| Bass | Hinojosa | Pallone |
| Becerra | Hoeffel | Pascrell |
| Bentsen | Holden | Pastor |
| Bereuter | Holt | Payne |
| Berkley | Honda | Pelosi |
| Berman | Hooley | Petri |
| Berry | Horn | Phelps |
| Bishop | Houghton | Platts |
| Blagojevich | Hoyer | Pomeroy |
| Blumenauer | Inslee | Price (NC) |
| Boehlert | Israel | Quinn |
| Bonior | Jackson (IL) | Ramstad |
| Bono | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Rangel |
| Borski | Jefferson | Reyes |
| Boswell | John | Rivers |
| Boyd | Johnson (CT) | Rodriguez |
| Brady (PA) | Johnson (IL) | Roemer |
| Brown (FL) | Johnson, E. B. | Ros-Lehtinen |
| Brown (OH) | Jones (OH) | Ross |
| Capito | Kanjorski | Rothman |
| Capps | Kaptur | Roybal-Allard |
| Capuano | Kennedy (RI) | Rush |
| Cardin | Kildee | Sabo |
| Carson (IN) | Kilpatrick | Sanchez |
| Carson (OK) | Kind (WI) | Sanders |
| Castle | Kirk | Sandlin |
| Clay | Kleczka | Sawyer |
| Clayton | Kucinich | Schakowsky |
| Clement | LaFalce | Schiff |
| Clyburn | Lampson | Serrano |
| Condit | Langevin | Shays |
| Conyers | Lantos | Sherman |
| Costello | Larsen (WA) | Simmons |
| Coyne | Larson (CT) | Skelton |
| Cramer | LaTourette | Slaughter |
| Crowley | Leach | Smith (MI) |
| Cummings | Lee | Smith (WA) |
| Davis (CA) | Levin | Snyder |
| Davis (FL) | Lewis (GA) | Solis |
| Davis (IL) | LoBiondo | Spratt |
| DeFazio | Lofgren | Stark |
| DeGette | Lowey | Stenholm |
| Delahunt | Lucas (KY) | Strickland |
| DeLauro | Luther | Stupak |
| Deutsch | Lynch | Tanner |
| Dicks | Maloney (CT) | Tauscher |
| Dingell | Maloney (NY) | Taylor (MS) |
| Doggett | Markey | Thompson (CA) |
| Dooley | Mascara | Thune |
| Doyle | Matheson | Thurman |
| Edwards | Matsui | Tierney |
| Engel | McCarthy (MO) | Towns |
| Eshoo | McCarthy (NY) | Turner |
| Etheridge | McCollum | Udall (CO) |
| Evans | McDermott | Udall (NM) |
| Farr | McGovern | Upton |
| Fattah | McHugh | Velazquez |
| Ferguson | McIntyre | Visclosky |
| Filner | McKinney | Walsh |
| Foley | McNulty | Wamp |
| Ford | Meehan | Waters |
| Frank | Meek (FL) | Watson (CA) |
| Frelinghuysen | Meeks (NY) | Watt (NC) |
| Frost | Menendez | Waxman |
| Ganske | Millender-McDonald | Weiner |
| Gephardt | Miller, George | Weldon (PA) |
| Gilchrest | Mink | Wexler |
| Gilman | Moore | Wolf |
| Gonzalez | Moran (VA) | Woolsey |
| Gordon | Morella | Wu |
| Graham | Nadler | Wynn |
And finally, if it is signed:
President George W. Bush
Article VI of the U.S Constitution states:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Anyone that supports or signs unconstitutional legislation is pissing on the graves of the Founding Fathers.
Anyone that supports or signs unconstitutional legislation is pissing on the graves of the Revolutionary War veterans that fought and died for the dream that is embodied in the Constitution.
Anyone that supports or signs unconstitutional legislation is a traitor, and should be dealt with as such.
Thomas Jefferson:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, February 15, 1791
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322
George Washington, The Man Who Could Have Been King
Yes. I agree. And the majority of them are gleefully Bashing our GREAT President Bush just as much as they can.
Many of them are on this thread. Myself excepted, of course.
I know what the 2nd is all about. And I exercise my rights under that amendment. And my point, since you can't read, is that armed overthrow of the government is not a constitutional process - it is starting all over. And it is very interesting that you jump straight to that option before you even mention any constitutional process.
Your interpretation - I assume that your discourse would apply to any law, not just this one. So it seems that you are saying that one's ability to decide whether or not a law is constitutional is proportionate to the size of one's arsenal.
With regard to constitutionality of the law - I haven't read the particulars of the bill, but I understand the argument that giving money to influence the political process is an exercise of free speech. If it were that simple, then even a monetary limit on contributions would be unconstitutional. Is that your view? If not, and monetary limits are okay, I don't really understand why it is not okay to prohibit someone (say, labor unions for example) from circumventing the law by giving more money to an organization that coordinates with the DNC to run ads that are okayed by their candidate - again without seeing the particulars to which you object. By the way, on the "giving money is speech" argument, this clearly equates to the long-held constitutional doctrine that certain actions are, in effect, political speech. How do you feel about flag burning?
You have a mighty high opinion of yourself.
Yeah, so? Are you saying one should be insecure in order to have a valid point?
I know what the 2nd is all about.
Your statments to this point do not support this assertion.
And I exercise my rights under that amendment.
Pray, tell me what you found when you researched the Founding Fathers and their quotes on the 2nd Amendment then.
And my point, since you can't read,
Look mom, an ad hominem because he couldn't make a good argument! BTW, this contention is proven wrong by the simple fact that this very post exists. But thanks for playing, please accept some nice parting gifts.
is that armed overthrow of the government is not a constitutional process - it is starting all over.
Evidently the "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" was glossed over in your readings of what the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment for, n'est-ce pas?
And it is very interesting that you jump straight to that option before you even mention any constitutional process.
Not at all, I state that if the SCOTUS fails in this ruling. That is allowing the fullest extent of the Constitutional process to work its way.
Your interpretation - I assume that your discourse would apply to any law, not just this one.
Any law which fundamentally assaults a basic human right, esp. as defined by the Bill of Rights, yes, that is correct.
So it seems that you are saying that one's ability to decide whether or not a law is constitutional is proportionate to the size of one's arsenal.
Wow, what a strawman argument! Nice try. Again, please accept these nice parting gifts.
With regard to constitutionality of the law - I haven't read the particulars of the bill,
Then why are you bothering to argue it with me, pray tell? If you can't even bother to read the bill, your criticisms are baseless and knee jerk. Try coming to the battle prepared next time.
but I understand the argument that giving money to influence the political process is an exercise of free speech. If it were that simple, then even a monetary limit on contributions would be unconstitutional. Is that your view?
Yep.
If not, and monetary limits are okay, I don't really understand why it is not okay to prohibit someone (say, labor unions for example) from circumventing the law by giving more money to an organization that coordinates with the DNC to run ads that are okayed by their candidate - again without seeing the particulars to which you object. By the way, on the "giving money is speech" argument, this clearly equates to the long-held constitutional doctrine that certain actions are, in effect, political speech.
Non sequitur. I have no problem with unlimited donations for ads, television, radio, etc.
How do you feel about flag burning?
What has that to do with the argument you're attempting to make? Or is it simply a way to try and bait me into saying something so you can continue with the ad hominem attacks? Please, show a bit more sophistication, ok?
Oh, your words don't scare me. They just don't make alot of sense. BTW - have you ever heard of a time, place and manner restriction? Are all of those unconstitutional? If not, would you mind if Handgun Control, Inc. hung around at your place of business and gave out handbills while broadcasting from sound truck?
Oh, you poor poor lawyer type person.
As long as they were not on my property, they could hand out any old thing they wished. See, that's called (and repeat it after me, slowly) being American
As to noise, that's a property rights issue. I would handle it, therefor, as a property rights violation.
Good rant.
No suprise there. How shameful.
Since you don't think my question about flag burning is salient, let me ask it a different way - do you agree that burning am American flag in protest of a government action or policy is a legitimate exercise of free speech rights? Or do you follow the logic of those who support legislation restricting such action and contend that it is an "action" and does not fall within the protection of free speech? Based upon your prior assertions, it would seem that either (a) you believe that flag burners are entitled to the fullest protection of the U.S. Constitution, or (b) you are logically inconsistent, with your beliefs changing with the extent to which you hold an issue dear.
Since you seem to believe that a SCOTUS ruling is the last word on any issue, can you explain why we now have integrated schools?
Do you believe that it is an appropriate constitutional response to what you perceive to be an unconstitutional action by government officials to make an effort to replace those officials through the electoral process before you shoot them?
Mr. Research - show me any comment that links Mr. Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote to any debate or commentary on the second amendment.
So do I and I agree with your analysis. It was a political decision - but still a bad one. It's bad for Republicans to be caving for this kind of unconstitutional law and bad for the President to be signing it but politically expedient? Obviously. Yes, CFR takes away a Democrat issue but at a steep price and I don't think the Republicans or Bush see it or else they simply don't believe it matters much. Maybe not but it still wasn't necessary to pass this unconstitutional bill.
That said, it's a done deal at this point. Might as well enjoy the political advantages and hope the SCOTUS overturns it, as they should. The Bush-haters will use it to bash him endlessly, of course. Remember the stem cell research decision last August? That was fodder for weeks and weeks of Bush-bashing. This should be worth a month, minimum, but that's a given on FR, home of the 'I'll Never Vote for a Republican Again' Club (as if they ever have) that meets every time Bush doesn't act like Pat Buchanan or some looney isolationist Libertarian.
I have no intention of abandoning Bush just because he doesn't do as I want him to do 100% of the time. This CFR thing stinks out loud but it isn't the end of the political world. It's just power politics and as you pointed out, a means to an end, which is a Republican Senate/House and more conservative Federal judges. I don't believe we have to pay this big a price for that (signing unconstitutional bills) but since most of the posters here will never vote for Bush or a Republican again (ahem) then it's all a moot point anyway as Democrats will control everything in a few more years, won't they? Oh well.
By the time folks of your line of thinking realized how effed every aspect of their life is, courtesy of the USG, it will be way to late....
The Constitution sets up processes for the handling of grievance and political dispute, including issues as to whether a particular law complies with its terms.
Those processes should be utilized as a condition precedent to armed revolt.
Political speech is political speech, whether it is in agreement with your own particular opinions or not.
Judicial review of Congressional acts is a countermajoritarian force in the Constitutional structure.
WOW! I had no idea that these concepts were such self-delusional sheeple thoughts that I was in need of immediate help! Where's my shotgun?
Pretty stupid rant.
Who signed the first EO?
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.