Chuck Can Borrow My Copy of the Constitution

The Washington Dispatch | June 22, 2003 | Jan Ireland

[Cathryn Crawford]

Chuck Can Borrow My Copy of the Constitution

Jun 22, 2003

I have my own little personal copy of the Constitution, which I’m going to loan Chuck Schumer. He doesn’t seem to have one. But, do you think he doesn’t have one? That’s hard to believe, isn’t it, that a New York Senator would not have access to the Constitution? So I’m going to have to wonder if it’s a collating problem. Chuckie doesn’t know how to collate.

He doesn’t know how to read something, and pull coherent, VERIFIABLE, conclusions from it. He has a problem putting pieces together. If Chuck has okayed any bridges in New York during his tenure, officials might want to go by and just give a look-see at the infrastructure. Make sure the concrete actually goes over the water, because that’s what a bridge is supposed to do. That way, there’s no gaping hole, as there is in his logic on how federal judges get nominated. (Aren’t we glad Chuck didn’t go into engineering?)

Chuck has written a letter to George Bush. In Burger King terms, that letter – big as it is – would be a Whopper Letter. I call it a Whopper Letter because it has actually rewritten the Constitution.

Now I’m old enough to have gone to school in America before the curriculum began to be dumbed-down. I even had to memorize parts of the Constitution, which I can still quote verbatim today. (I startled my children as they were growing up more than once, I can tell you, spouting off patriotic passages at the drop of a hat.)

And as soon as I saw that letter Chuck wrote to President George Bush, I knew. He’s done it again, I said to myself. Just as he did when he was ‘debating’ Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association on television not long ago.

On that issue, he put on his granny glasses and ‘read’ from a Fraternal Order of Police report, saying they agreed with him on using so-called ballistic fingerprinting. The actual report said so-called ballistic fingerprinting is easily alterable, and that they did not support that issue, and that law enforcement dollars would be better spent elsewhere. But it was expedient for Schumer then, so he said it. Point A, Point C. No integral, necessary Point B.

And he’s done exactly that on the issue of nominating federal judges. Here’s the way the process is supposed to go, constitutionally. Point A (the President nominates), Point B (the Senate advises and consents), Point C (the President appoints). Schumer is suggesting that there really is no Point B. That Point A actually incorporates Point B. That President Bush should check out nominees with him first (he even provided the President a list). That way, the pesky Point B could be taken care of without filibuster. Point A, Point C. No integral, necessary Point B.

There’s a problem with counting, too. Schumer and his group apparently never got to handle manipulatives in school. (That’s not a Clinton term, that’s teacher term. Manipulatives are actual, physical representations that can be picked up. They are supposed to make it easier for children to understand abstract concepts.) They must not have gotten to pour sand back and forth into one-half and two-thirds containers. Because they think the simple majority vote for federal judges takes two-thirds.

And, come to think of it, he did this same kind of counting thing when George Bush’s election was on the line. He apparently read Article II of the Constitution – you know, the one that talks about ELECTORAL votes being the way a president in America is elected? – and still thought Al Gore was the winner. Counting problems again.

I’d better go ahead and offer my own little personal copy of the Constitution. Because it seems that the copy New York Senator Chuck Schumer has access to is missing critical pages.

[jwalsh07]

Tell Jan not to bother. Schumer is hopelessly lost.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Excellent article...a must-read.

[b4its2late]

Schumer doesn't read anything unless it's promoting socialism..

[isthisnickcool]

Schumer and his group apparently never got to handle manipulatives in school. (That’s not a Clinton term, that’s teacher term.

Bill Clinton certainly understood what being manipulted meant. He sure proved he wanted to be handled whenever it suited him. Even in the oval office.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Actually, I think he'd much rather handle others then have them handle him.

Better put some ice on that...

[StriperSniper]

How did I know it was about Schumer just from the title? ;-)

[Brimack34]

I can not believe there is no one that can beat him. Even another one of our famous moderates.

[Bullish]

Chukie's playing a game that will end very badly for him and his little rat party.

[Batrachian]

I think it would be instructive to have Chuck Schumer write a new Constitution as an exercise and see what it says.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Chuckles Schumer is a joke. He wrote an article recently for the "Democrat Leadership Council", as supposedly "moderate" 'rat group, where he defended LITMUS TESTS for judges.

He's an ass, just like the symbol for his rapidly deteriorating party.

[ValenB4]

Schumer's not the only one who ought to keep rereading the Constitution. Neither party has a monopoly in not obeying it.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Schumer's not the only one who ought to keep rereading the Constitution. Neither party has a monopoly in not obeying it.

What specifically are you talking about?

[mcswan]

You're right; it's a waste of time, and hopelessly naive, to expect Sen. Schumer to be concerned about the US Constitution. As with all Liberals, for him, the Constitution means whatever he wants it to mean this year. The pursuit of political power trumps all concerns of maintaining the rule of law. For those of you in the great state of New york, however, it's not as bad as it could be; you're spared the disgrace of having the two worst US Senators by your neighboring states of Vermont and Massachusetts.

[jwalsh07]

I live in Ct and resent you leaving my senators off of the "Worst Senators List". :-}

[ValenB4]

I'm not talking specifically. I'm talking broadly. Broadly, I say.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I'm not talking specifically. I'm talking broadly. Broadly, I say.

Hmmm. So long as you don't make silly, vauge, unsubstantiated comments that are meant to do nothing but provoke.

[ladyinred]

This is right on target. Great article.

[dts32041]

Don't worry little chuckie can't belong to a militia therefore he doesn't want anyone else to belong.

BTW what ever happen to the unintended consquences?

[ladyinred]

Moderate democrat= (read) Screaming Socialist!