Posted on 01/23/2012 8:25:36 AM PST by IMissPresidentReagan
Oh joy, a sucky candidate for a birthday present for me.
Yeah, I think Rush was moved as well.
Great call!
Yes. He made Rush’s day!
Your b-day is May 22?
We have the same problem in PA. No one left on the ballot at that point—might as well not even hold the Presidential primary.
Glad for him this wasn’t Sean’s show. Thankfully Rush just sat back and let him talk.
“I point to current jurisprudence, which whether we like it or not, is what controls what is and is not Constitutional.”
Much of current jurisprudence is wrong and we all know that from FR. One blatent example is the twisting of the constitution to give us “right to medical privacy between a doctor and patient” which was then further twisted to set up government sanctioned murder.
We have Kelo over riding private property. We have the interstate commerce clause being used for anything and everything. Now we have the confiscation of our physical beings being decided in court and their decision will be a matter of jurisprudence.
That does not make it constitutional. Period.
“It’s faulty logic to ASSUME we know how anyone would react in any situation, and to say historical figure x, y, z would react this way or that in a given situation with today’s parameters is such a nonsensical debate to have..”
Which is why they gave us such a beautiful governing document. They knew we would have to constantly battle despots, and they were hopeful that those giving their consent to be governed would maintain individual liberty with a vengence. Sadly, in that our public has failed them for 80-90 years....
That call will be featured on Rush’s home page later.
Late to the party. Rush says Newt is a vessel right now. Where are we going with this? Is it truly an option for someone to come into the fray now???? Romney will not get it. Honestly, right now he just seems weak and silly
What do know about Britt Hume,his late son and Newt?
Merryland isn’t much better.
Last time I only had McQueeg and pHuckabee to vote for.
If you read carefully my comments, I did not say this was or was not within the bounds of the original intent of the Constitution; arguments can and have been made on either side. Regardless of your opinion or mine, the controlling law NOW says that your Fourth Amendment rights are not applicable when you travel because you voluntarily put yourself out there. That's not just wiretapping, it's Supreme Court decisions relating directly to searching cars, trunks, passengers, “smelling” marijuana; pretextual stops; even with respect to renting homes, visiting other’s homes, and so on.
On a personal matter, and for the record; these are NOT decisions I've made or argued in favor of; they are the controlling case law as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. You can argue that they aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional and I understand that argument; but Marbury vs. Madison has controlled since it was decided. I personally think that decision was an over extension of the judicial branch, HOWEVER, as it has stood for over 200 years, it's the accepted law of the land.
And back to the specific incident at hand; if Rand Paul's argument is the TSA is unconstitutional, then why hasn't he introduced a bill eradicating it? Why is his defense that the “TSA is more concerned with people who don't want to harm us...” rather than the TSA is completely unconstitutional.
By the time Newt was interviewed by fat Candy he only needed to use half his brain and still slammed her to the deck.
Yup.
It’s frustrating because I feel totally without a voice in the primary; but I get all the build up and ulcers.
Tonight’s debate on NBC:
It’s moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams, and will also feature questions by National Journal’s Beth Reinhard (a former Miami Herald reporter), and the Tampa Bay Times’ veteran political reporter Adam Smith. You can also watch the debate live on NBCPolitic.com and follow the Twitter stream of our political experts.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/23/10216094-first-thoughts-high-stakes
Most likely a brokered convention. Don’t know what filing deadlines are still open.
I’ve met fat Candy in person. If I had to describe her shape,I’d say....blob.
Again, my response was directly to a comment that stated historical figures would do x, y, or z.
Whether we like the decisions that are made or not (and it started way before Filburn, it started with Marbury), the Supreme Court unfortunately decides and dictates what is and isn’t constitutional (or at least until Marbury is overturned). That is why it is so important to look at who potential judicial nominees will be and why it’s imperative that we ensure that there are as few Kagans and Ginsbergs, Stevens, and Brennans who serve on the Court as possible.
Until the controlling decisions are overturned, however, they still are considered controlling law, regardless of what you or I think about the Constitution, or regardless of what you and I think Madison, Revere, Adams, Washington, Patrick Henry, etc. would do.
So . . . you could say that she potentially lives up to her name by eating too much of it?
I didn’t think Steven Tyler sang that bad. Even tho he’s a Pats fan.
I wanted a Harbaugh Bowl...
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.