PDA

View Full Version : Our contemptible congress!



LWW
10-29-2010, 04:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution. You say: "Whoa, Williams, you're really out of line! You'd better explain." Let's look at it.

Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., responding to a question during a town hall meeting, said he's <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"not worried about the Constitution."</span> That was in response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare. He told his constituents that the Constitution guaranteed each of us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Of course, our Constitution guarantees no such thing. The expression "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is found in our Declaration of Independence.

During a debate, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., gave his opinion about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, concluding that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"the Constitution is wrong."</span> Not to be outdone, at his town hall meeting, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., responded to a constituent's question about Obamacare by saying, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"There are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from (making) rules that can affect your private life."</span> Adding, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Yes, the federal government can do most anything in this country."</span> The questioner responded, "People like you, sir, are destroying this nation." Her comment won shouts of approval from the audience.

Last year, a CNS reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Speaker Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"</span> She shares the vision of her fellow Californian Stark that Washington can do most anything.

Congressional ignorance and contempt for our Constitution isn't only on the Democrat side of the aisle. During a town hall meeting, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., was asked by one of his constituents whether he knew what Article I, Section I of the Constitution mandated. He replied that, "Article I, Section I is the right to free speech."

Actually, Article I, Section I reads, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." LoBiondo was later asked whether he knew the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Fearing further revelation of his ignorance, he replied, "I can't articulate that."

By the way, those five guarantees are: free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ... ." Here's my question to you: If one takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't he know what he's supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to?

If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there'd be hope -- ignorance is curable through education. These people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They have contempt for the limits our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by <span style='font-size: 17pt'>James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."</span></div></div>
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>HEAR HEAR! (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/10/27/our_contemptible_congress/page/full/)</span>

LWW

llotter
10-29-2010, 10:18 AM
If there is one thing the new Republican Congress could do that would have the potential to get this country back on the right tract economically, morally, culturally and politically would be to enlighten the general public about the Enumerated Powers and limited government and the virtue of Liberty. The best way to accomplish this would be to create a standing committee to set up hearings and take testimony for both existing and new laws to insure that they conform with the Constitution. I would definitely become more of a CSPAN junkie than I already am.

The vast majority understand the Constitution as proving cradle to grave security for any and all possible contingencies and never heard otherwise, thanks to the leftest in charge of our formal education system.

The Constitution is NOT the complex document that the citizens need much help to understand and especially don't need a long history of case law and stari decisis to interpret. If the subject of a law is not specifically authorized, the law is unconstitutional.

It would be fantastic to hear the Left attempt to justify things like federal involvement in Agriculture and Education and Retirement and healthcare and all the rest of that garbage just how it can find its way into legitimacy. This process would be the best education the citizens have ever had in constitutional government and that is essential if we are going to survive and prosper and a free society.

Deeman3
10-29-2010, 12:44 PM
I would settle for a remarkable new concept of actually telling people the entire content of a bill before passage in the dark of night. Remember nancy's promise to drain the swamp and clarity in government then, "You will see what's in the bill after it has passed!"

I know with either party in control we will face corruption but at least let once again, let us start seeing the corruption right up front, not the hiding of it in 1,000+ pages of payoff to political supporters.

I'll even back the effort to limit other countries to contribute to PACs if they will publish on each bill the contributors form that industry that have contributed to the congressional members who voted on the matter.

We must have roads, we must have education and I know we must have boysfriends of congressmen who need jobs in the financial industry, just list their associations and contributors.

BP, Haliburton, Fanny Mae, yes, all of them.

Public financing of all political campaigns, yep, if it eliminates all private funding and anyone caught cheating will quit and feint embarrassment instead of claiming they are not much more corrupt than the next CBC Member.

I am now ready to see how serious everyone really is on this, as well as the constitutional issues you brought up.

I am just so sick of all politicians playing us and taking advantage of those poor liberals with that genetic defect. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

llotter
10-30-2010, 07:32 AM
You are setting the standard way too low. If we are going to really change the direction of the Ship-of-State and avoid hitting the iceberg immediately in our path, much more dramatic course correction needs to be made. Not only must we hit full speed reverse (R) but we must crank the wheel full right (R).

Stretch
10-30-2010, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are setting the standard way too low. If we are going to really change the direction of the Ship-of-State and avoid hitting the iceberg immediately in our path, much more dramatic course correction needs to be made. Not only must we hit full speed reverse (R) but we must crank the wheel full right (R). </div></div>

Great, now you want to go backwards in circles. St.

LWW
10-30-2010, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are setting the standard way too low. If we are going to really change the direction of the Ship-of-State and avoid hitting the iceberg immediately in our path, much more dramatic course correction needs to be made. Not only must we hit full speed reverse (R) but we must crank the wheel full right (R). </div></div>

Great, now you want to go backwards in circles. St. </div></div>

Let's put this to a vote ...

Who wants to go back to before the democrook congressional takeover and have 4.8% unemployment ... and who wants the 10.1% rate following the democrook takeover?

Who wants to go back to before the democrook congressional takeover and have 5.4% GDP growth ... and who wants the (6.8)% following the democrook takeover?

Who wants to go back to before the democrook congressional takeover and have 13,000 stock ... and who wants the 6,550 following the democrook takeover?


Who wants to go back to before the democrook congressional takeover and have a federal deficit of (1)% of GDP ... and who wants the (10)% of GDP deficit following the democrook takeover?

Politicians can lie about the numbers ... the sheeple can believe the politicians lies about the numbers ... the NUMBERS (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=USD) themselves do not lie.

You can have your own opinion ... you cannot have your own truth.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Unemployment-Rate-Chart-000002.png

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000001.png

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Stock-Market-Index-Chart-000002.png

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Government-Budget-Chart-000002.png

LWW &lt;--- Slaying leftist mythology since 1980.

Qtec
10-31-2010, 02:59 AM
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Government-Budget-Chart-000001.png

What the chart shows is that under Clinton, things were looking rosy. In 2002, just when the BUSH policies started to take effect, the line goes down. It starts to rise again in 2004 but we know now this increase was fuelled by the Wall St Ponzi scheme and the inflated housing market. Once the cat was out of the bag, during the Bush presidency, the chart takes a nose dive and this is when obama steps in.

What's REALLY funny is that you post a graph that shows Clinton had a surplus, something you have always denied.

Q..LOL


Q

LWW
10-31-2010, 03:46 AM
Actually ... what is shows was the success of a non moonbat congress combined with a POTUS who would do whatever the polls told him to do in order to stay in the White House.

All the excuses you make for the current regime merely reinforce the image that you are simply a tool of the party.

LWW