Replies

the difference between Bill Clinton and Joseph Stalin

Time to enact their dream? Just kidding. It is hard not to resort to extravagant claims in the face of the ignorance one is confronted with across this country on Constitutional issues.

There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course. I think it was Sen. John Glen that said of this bill, then we wouldn't be able to do 95% of what we do.

Thanks

Well I can tell you the "security" people at the airports do not know $**T about the 4th amendment. I took 4 flights this week and they forced me to surrender my 4th amendment rights by searching my luggage twice and my laptop computer bag 6 times.

When I asked for their "search warrant" they looked at me like I was from another planet. I am a 53-year-old white man certainly not a member of the group we know is causing the terrorist problems around the world but that did not matter.

When I informed them, that as a US Citizen, I was protected by the 4th amendment from a search without a search warrant they said it was an FAA regulation.

They could not comprehend that the US Constitution supersedes some FAA scum.

Don't give me any of the "in the interest of security" crap... Every time the government wants to overstep its bounds they use the "in the interest of security" scam.

The government knows the culprits but because of the heat they would take from the PC crowd, they don't dare get rid of this 3rd world trash.

The government would rather harass life long citizens than do any profiling of people who obviously care more about their cult than the USA.

This is the one and only time I wish Janet Reno was still AG. She had a unique way of eliminating people who had a belief different from hers.

The House actually did adopt a rule a few years ago requiring committee reports to cite the constitutional authority for the bill in question.

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

Needless to say, it has had little effect, except to prove that you can rationalize absolutely anything.

"There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course. I think it was Sen. John Glen that said of this bill, then we wouldn't be able to do 95% of what we do."

Even if the government had to justify it's actions according to the Constitution it wouldn't matter. The "promote the General Welfare" part is all of the justification that Congress needs. I'm afraid that it will ultimately take another Civil War to straighten out this mess.

There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course.

Good point. This is about the same question the United States Supreme Court asked the Florida Supreme Court regarding the recounts. I think it went someting like - What Florida law(s) did you refer to when making your decision? Not one of the eight morons could answer it.

There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course.

A pity, too. This bill should have passed, along with one modeled on George F. Will's suggestion: Resolved, no bill shall be considered to have become established law until every member of Congress can prove he has read it in full at least once. And, I would add one of my own: Resolved, no bill passed by Congress or signed by the President shall be deemed effective and applicable until such time as forty existing unconstitutional laws have been repealed in toto. Well, we can dream, can't we?