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

me

[Sir Gawain]

Hey, I get to rant sometimes too. :-D

[TaxMe]

Rant on! I also have some very serious concerns about the constitutionality of CFR and do not support it. Is it "treasonous" to vote for it, however? If there is a clear and definitive usurpation of the constitution, then yes. Is that the situation in this case? Many people say know give the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley v. Valeo and progeny. Does this excuse congressman from abiding by their constitutional oath, however? Not in my opinion. If they have doubts about the constitutionality of CFR (and most should), then it should not be passed.

[Wolfie]

Constitutionality has yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

[Sabertooth]

Nice work, Gawain.

You realize, of course, that opposing Unconstitutional Legislation on principle makes you"politically naive" among many in this forum.

[Sir Gawain]

Anyone with a third grade education can see when something is blatantly a violation. I was also ranting about the socialist traitors that sign anti-2A bills.

[Joe Brower]

Good show, SG -- I've saved this data to disk for future reference. The list just keeps growing all the time.

For what it's worth, I wrote a letter to the editor this morning just to get it off my chest, and mailed it to five local newsrags here on the gulf coast of Florida. I post it below in case anyone wants to copy it and send it to their own local papers. Feel free to adapt it as y'all see fit:

***

So, the Senate has approved the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill by a vote of 60-40, after the House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 240-189. Florida's own two Senators, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, signed it. It should come as no surprise, really. Once people obtain positions of power, it only stands to reason that they will alter the game to assure that they remain there. This also explains why the mainstream media has almost universally supported this, since this bill gives those agencies almost complete domination of election information thirty to sixty days prior to an election.

You have to love the way that politicians can work the language. "Campaign finance reform" sounds so much better than "incumbent protection act", doesn't it?

Let it be known right here and right now that every one of the 249 members of the House of Representatives and 60 members of the Senate have acted in deliberate and direct violation of the Oaths of Office, which states that those who hold office in the federal legislature shall "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, begins with "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't these "educated" people understand?

It also seems that no one perceives the supreme irony that this bill embodies -- that our so-called "leaders" must pass a federal law to supposedly keep themselves honest? At the very least, this bill is a vote of no confidence against themselves. What will become of all this is quite uncertain. The law of unintended consequences looms large in this corrupt and blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislature.

[Wolfie]

Hey, rant all you want, if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is that matters of constitutionality are decided by 9 life-time political appointees.

[Texaggie79]

Already posted here genius.

[Sir Gawain]

We as a people also have the power to make sure a trip to the Supreme Court is never needed.

[Centurion2000]

The bottom line is that matters of constitutionality are decided by 9 life-time political appointees.

Don't forget about the constitutional reset button as well.

[Lumberjack]

Constitutionality has yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

Are you suggesting that We The People are unable to read and understand a blatant Constitutional violation? Whether SCOTUS rules for or against this bilge, its still un-Constitutional. And We The People have the ultimate say in that. Period.

[Wolfie]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you how it is. I don't like it any better than you do, but the fact is, 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.

[Mark Bahner]

If there is a clear and definitive usurpation of the constitution, then yes. Is that the situation in this case?

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Looks pretty clear to me! Of course, unlike all Supreme Court judges (since the middle of the 20th century, anyway) I can actually read the Constitution.

[Lumberjack]

when 9 people, accountable to no one, are the final arbiters of its meaning.

Ahh, got it. I think you missed my reference, though, that they in fact do not have ultimate say on Constitutionality of any law. We do. Check out the Amendment list just after the 1st. We hold the the ace, the left and right baeren and can just about loner their butts if they fail to interpret the Constitution correctly (Euker reference, for my fellow Ohioans). This isn't a "grey area", and we are all quite capable of seeing it as the gross violation of the 1st Amendment that it is.

[KC Burke]

For what it's worth, I wrote a letter to the editor this morning just to get it off my chest,...

And a masterful letter it is.

[Mark Bahner]

Yes, excellent letter.

[William Tell]

Wolfie said: 'Hey, rant all you want, if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is that matters of constitutionality are decided by 9 life-time political appointees."

Only if we consent.

[steve50]

The politicans play the version with the "bug" tho. It trumps everything, even the Constitution and BoR