The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea...that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy.This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the two houses of Congress. And a lack of curiosity to even explore the issue. The author is probably equally mystified as to the difference in term lengths between representatives and senators.
They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much influence. The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.Delicacy, of course, has nothing to do with changing the Constitution. The methods of amending it are clearly defined and always have been. It's hard to do for a reason. But this guy doesn't know or care why.
Speaker of the House John Boehner has asserted that the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from armed hostilities if Congress has not given its approval within 60 days.It's actually the War Powers Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) That means it's a law which carries just a little more weight than a mere resolution.
Since the signing of the Constitution in 1787, Congress has declared war exactly five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War and World Wars I and II.An incomplete list at best. Patently false at worst. It leaves out the Iraqi War Resolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution) Also left off of the list is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) (authorization to go to war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan). These very obvious false statements are made in the article for the express purpose of providing cover for O'Bama on Libya.
The government also compels us to buy car insurance (if we want to legally drive our car), which is a product from a private company.Moronic point that tries to equate the voluntary action of car ownership with the involuntary act of being born. It also (purposefully) confuses state government laws (on car insurance requirements) with O'BamaCare federal mandates regarding health insurance.
The Affordable Care Act may be bad legislation, as some contend, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. There's no law against bad laws. The remedy for bad laws is elections.
If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so.
The Liberty Medal is an annual award administered by the National Constitution Center of the United States to recognize leadership in the pursuit of freedom.
If you see and listen to Stengel you'd swear he was queer but I guess he's not . As far as his degree , I think it's safe to say he wasn't a Phys. Ed. major but it's doubtful that his academic rigor is of a generally useful nature .
I can say that, too. My parents used to subscribe to it back in the seventies.
I can say that, too. My parents used to subscribe to it back in the seventies.
My parents preferred Life (take that however you may)...
If you see and listen to Stengel you'd swear he was queer but I guess he's not . As far as his degree , I think it's safe to say he wasn't a Phys. Ed. major but it's doubtful that his academic rigor is of a generally useful nature .
Philosophy, maybe? ::hysterical::
If you see and listen to Stengel you'd swear he was queer but I guess he's not . As far as his degree , I think it's safe to say he wasn't a Phys. Ed. major but it's doubtful that his academic rigor is of a generally useful nature .
Philosophy, maybe? ::hysterical::
English ::facepalm::
Here's the best of the stupid quotes:QuoteIf the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so.
It just doesn't get any more ignorant than that. That Bill of Rights thingy is a mirage. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
It's actually the War Powers Act. That means it's a law which carries just a little more weight than a mere resolution.
This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php)
The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law.
Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:QuoteHere are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete? Glad he cleared that up.
The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea...that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy.
They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much influence. The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.
Speaker of the House John Boehner has asserted that the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from armed hostilities if Congress has not given its approval within 60 days.
The government also compels us to buy car insurance (if we want to legally drive our car), which is a product from a private company.
The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:QuoteHere are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete? Glad he cleared that up.
As I said, a complete absence of the knowledge of First Principles (and human nature).
The stupidest part is right in the first paragraph:QuoteHere are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
So both technological progress and cultural deterioration have rendered the Constitution obsolete? Glad he cleared that up.
As I said, a complete absence of the knowledge of First Principles (and human nature).
QuoteIt's actually the War Powers Act. That means it's a law which carries just a little more weight than a mere resolution.
Uh, actually no, it is more complicated than that.
From the Library of Congress Law Library web site.QuoteThis guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php)
The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law.
The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.
It's an apologist, cover piece for our current commander in chief.....The one who has sullied the Constitution at every opportunity.
Trap, with your permission, would you mind if I used portions of your critique? Pieces of crap such as this need to be attacked and I have the idea of an opinion piece for my small local paper, if I can get it printed.
If I can't get it printed, then I'll buy the space.
This type of garbage needs to be challenged.
QuoteThe War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.Which is to say, the president breaks the law and that's okay with the author because, presumably, he agrees with the president in this situation.
Clinton ignored the law during the bombing in Kosovo (and also in Somalia) so this is nothing new for Democrat executives to violate the law.
The article's author is being very selective in his discussion of the law for reasons that I will assume we can all guess. I did not express this well.
QuoteQuoteThe War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.Which is to say, the president breaks the law and that's okay with the author because, presumably, he agrees with the president in this situation.
Clinton ignored the law during the bombing in Kosovo (and also in Somalia) so this is nothing new for Democrat executives to violate the law.
The article's author is being very selective in his discussion of the law for reasons that I will assume we can all guess. I did not express this well.
My intent was to clarify not criticize.
Having said that, let us not forget that the left, even though Bush was in compliance with the WPR/A, wanted to impeach him over it.
...
I hope Obama does nothing to validate the War Powers Act or Resolution. It will result in another reason certain parts of the Left will not be energized in 2012.
The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
The Constitution is not law.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
That the original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
We have only declared war five times.
Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Naturalization depends on your birth.
The Obamacare mandate is a tax.
Late last week, I fisked Richard Stengel’s Time Magazine cover story “One Document, Under Seige” (update: click here for the one page version) but it deserves more discussion. I consider it nothing less than a journalistic scandal that this piece was (1) a cover story, (2) written by their Managing Editor, (3) who serves in an organization dedicated to teaching other journalists about the Constitution, and yet it is rife with factual errors, including many that are obvious simply by reading the Constitution.
Great article at Paterico. He goes on to do a detailed analysis of each factual error.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
The "American Constitution Society" must advocate for the constitution in the same way "Planned Parenthood" advocates for children.
Now, on the right we have the Federalist Society, a group of generally conservative scholars and other interested citizens devoted to the preservation of the Constitution. So the left decided it needed an organization like this too, so someone formed the American Constitution Society (ACS), meant to be a liberal alternative to the Federalist Society. (This shouldn’t be confused with the National Constitution Center, which by all appearances is an unrelated entity.)