Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
As Political Compromise, Democrats Propose Ignoring Both the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution
After the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms from government interference nationwide, anti-gun Democrats offered a political compromise in which they would agree to ignore both the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution."While we recognize that the sort of strict gun control laws we support actually increase crime because they prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves with guns while allowing criminals to use guns against them," said one prominent Democrat, "we still think Americans can't be trusted to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. So we're proposing that the federal government ignore both the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, which prevents the military from quartering troops in the houses of private citizens, so the U.S. army can protect Americans instead of Americans' defending themselves."
Democratic leaders defended their proposal by saying that "the correct policy always results from maximizing government interference, and we can do that here by ignoring not one but two parts of the Bill of Rights."
Associated video: Heartland Institute; associated articles: Washington Examiner; Daily Caller
As Political Compromise, Democrats Propose Ignoring Both the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution
After the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms from government interference nationwide, anti-gun Democrats offered a political compromise in which they would agree to ignore both the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution."While we recognize that the sort of strict gun control laws we support actually increase crime because they prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves with guns while allowing criminals to use guns against them," said one prominent Democrat, "we still think Americans can't be trusted to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. So we're proposing that the federal government ignore both the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, which prevents the military from quartering troops in the houses of private citizens, so the U.S. army can protect Americans instead of Americans' defending themselves."
Democratic leaders defended their proposal by saying that "the correct policy always results from maximizing government interference, and we can do that here by ignoring not one but two parts of the Bill of Rights."
Associated video: Heartland Institute; associated articles: Washington Examiner; Daily Caller
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
"Living Constitution" Pronounced Dead
Washington, D.C.--After hearings were concluded on the President Obama's nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice, Juris Doctors pronounced the "Living Constitution" dead after the nation's supreme legal document failed to respond to pleas by Senators, left-wing judges, and academics for over 223 years."We held out hope that the parchment would give us a sign, any sign, that judges should impose their own personal views on what the Constitution should mean, based on their own contemporaneous policy preference," said one Harvard Law professor. "But the words in the Constitution just haven't budged."
Some Senators tried in vain during the hearings to articulate a plausible rationale regarding how anything resembling the "rule of law" could be upheld if the meaning of the Constitution turned on the shifting personal views of five out of nine Justices. But after hours of exhaustive blathering, they finally gave up.
Following the hearings, a candlelight vigil was held outside the National Archives, led by the Supreme Court's most prominent judicial activists.
"I feel empty inside," said one Justice, "not being able to look at that document and see myself reflected in it anymore."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)