Constitutional Hijinks
In a pay-walled editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal makes excellent fun of the left's reaction to today's planned reading of the Constitution in the House. We've already heard the giant mind of WaPo's Ezra Klein try to wrestle with the fact that the law of the land is all, like, old and stuff. Another liberal blog is apparently railing against the waste of over one... million... dollars... it imagines will be caused by the reading - which, after the profligacy of the Democratic congress, makes them sound a bit like Dr. Evil. And lefty congressman Henry Waxman protested, "When I went to law school they said the law's what a judge says it is." Which makes me hope he'll be in attendance at the reading! Others are charging that the GOP is treating the Constitution as if it were sacred. Not that! Anything but that!
My question is: what are these idiots suggesting as an alternative to Constitutional law? If government is not going to be curtailed by our founding principles, is it just supposed to be able to do whatever it wants? Have these people read NO history? None? Are they so enamored of their own Utopian imaginings that the will of the people and the rights of individuals mean nothing to them? The passage of Obamacare makes me think so. Their reaction to the Constitution - like vampires reacting to a cross - makes me think so.
Well, if they can't stand it, how about this: While the Republicans read the Constitution, let the leftists drive around the capitol in a Volkswagen, then pour out and do somersaults, handstands and cartwheels. Because they are clowns.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
My question is: what are these idiots suggesting as an alternative to Constitutional law?
Why, Judge Dredd of course!
Jun '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Democrats wonder, how it's possible to stand and read the random hopes and wishes of Justice Breyer? You know, the final controlling authority in American Law.
Jul '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
The left is hoping Sotomeyor will leaven the hard loaf of the Constitution with some wise Latina thinking.
Dec '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
What a refreshing process! I'm listening to the reading as I write. There is value in reviewing the basis of one's actions on a daily basis. Whether it's prayer, continuing medical education, or practicing basketball fundamentals, etc. My hope and expectation is that if the Republican leadership can connect the legislative process to fundamental principles, citizens will support their work. If we're going to reverse the course we're on without a calamity, the people will have to accept tough decisions.
May '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
As Peter reported, Rush is calling this reading an "exorcism." Anyone who has seen The Exorcist knows that when the priest begins reciting the verses to cast out the demon, that's when things get really noisy. While that demon may previously have laid low, it now flagrantly reveals itself, exposing the depth of its malice and using any and all means to maintain its hold on the innocent victim.
Andrew, the only clown I am reminded of here is the one in Stephen King's 'It'.
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Ironically, per the C-Span video, Republicans seem to have had other more pressing business demanding their attention too. All those empty seats look like an own-goal haymaking opportunity for enterprising lefties to me: Rightwing hypocrisy, now with visuals!
Aug '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
JM Hanes
All those empty seats look like an own-goal haymaking opportunity for enterprising lefties to me: Rightwing hypocrisy, now with visuals! · Jan 6 at 9:14am
From a wire service:For the first hour of the recital the Republican side of the chamber was full, while far fewer Democrats occupied the other side. After an hour, the number of Republican listeners also declined.
They're reading it to you. They're reading it to America in an attempt to reiterate what this is all about. It's not about "not reading it" , it's not about "you'll find out what's in it", and it's not about "we make things up as we go along" .
It's not hypocritical to remind people that we are a constitutional democracy.
Who watches C-Span anyway ? I'm pretty sure that MSNBC has handpuppets doing a satirical skit right now with the founding fathers doing a Punch and Judy with Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews in their respective roles.
Edited on Jan 6, 2011 at 11:47amDec '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
And lefty congressman Henry Waxman protested, "When I went to law school they said the law's what a judge says it is."
For anybody making an anti-lawyer argument, there it is.
Henry's right about that. That is indeed what they teach in law school.
Jun '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
AmishDude: And lefty congressman Henry Waxman protested, "When I went to law school they said the law's what a judge says it is."
For anybody making an anti-lawyer argument, there it is.
Henry's right about that. That is indeed what they teach in law school. · Jan 6 at 9:32am
That's fine, but if you're a member of Congress, the Constitution is your principal client. Everyone else comes second.
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Daniel Frank: As Peter reported, Rush is calling this reading an "exorcism." Anyone who has seen The Exorcist knows that when the priest begins reciting the verses to cast out the demon, that's when things get really noisy. While that demon may previously have laid low, it now flagrantly reveals itself, exposing the depth of its malice and using any and all means to maintain its hold on the innocent victim.
Andrew, the only clown I am reminded of here is the one in Stephen King's 'It'. · Jan 6 at 9:01am
I was thinking it's like sunlight and crosses to a vampire.
May '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
flownover
JM Hanes
Ironically, per the C-Span video, Republicans seem to have had other more pressing business demanding their attention too. All those empty seats look like an own-goal haymaking opportunity for enterprising lefties to me: Rightwing hypocrisy, now with visuals! · Jan 6 at 9:14am
Don't get your skivvies in a bind Hanes. They're reading it to you. They're reading it to America in an attempt to reiterate what this is all about. It's not about "not reading it" , it's not about "you'll find out what's in it", and it's not about "we make things up as we go along" .
With all due respect, I'd prefer that Congress itself listen to the words of what is supposed to be our binding, bedrock, founding document. And for that reason, JM Hanes makes a perfectly good point: the Republicans should show up and listen to it. Enough with pointless grandstanding for the cameras! And enough with passing legislation that hasn't been read, line by line!
The Constitution is to the Congressional Left like wolfsbane is to a vampire. More, please.
Edited on Jan 6, 2011 at 10:13amNov '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
In another thread, I noted that liberals hate Christianity, not because it is, "like, old and repressive and stuff," but because it is a major obstacle to the progressive agenda.
Likewise, liberals hate the Constitution, not because it is, "like, old and confusing and stuff," but because it, too, is a major obstacle to the progressive agenda.
Liberals want POWER and, in order to get it, they are perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution or destroy Christianity.
If you are going to read the Constitution aloud, a few passages from the Bible might be salutary, as well. Any suggestions appropriate to the occasion?
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
flownover
They're reading it to America..... Who watches C-Span anyway?
You may want to rethink that juxtaposition.
If we're going to do symbolism, let's at least do it right. Lift a single frame of empty seats, et voilá: Republicans take a (symbolic!) pass on the Constitution.
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Lady Kurobara: In another thread, I noted that liberals hate Christianity, not because it is, "like, old and repressive and stuff," but because it is a major obstacle to the progressive agenda.
Likewise, liberals hate the Constitution, not because it is, "like, old and confusing and stuff," but because it, too, is a major obstacle to the progressive agenda.
Liberals want POWER and, in order to get it, they are perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution or destroy Christianity.
If you are going to read the Constitution aloud, a few passages from the Bible might be salutary, as well. Any suggestions appropriate to the occasion? · Jan 6 at 12:20pm
Lady Kurobara... How about we start with "In the Beginning" (Genesis 1:1) and end with "amen" (Revelation 22:21).
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Where do liberal Christians fit into this picture?
Render unto Caesar?
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
"A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2
Aug '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
If the Dems were to read the Constitution wouldn't it have to be done in multiple languages as a gesture to inclusivity? That's how we do things in progressive Europe where,by the way,our Constitution is longer than your Healthcare Act- all that inclusivity sure does take up a lot of space.
Aug '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
Andrew Klavan:
My question is: what are these idiots suggesting as an alternative to Constitutional law? If government is not going to be curtailed by our founding principles, is it just supposed to be able to do whatever it wants?
Are they so enamored of their own Utopian imaginings that the will of the people and the rights of individuals mean nothing to them? ·
The problem is that liberal Democrats believe in political democracy, wherin the "philosopher kings" or "the great man" incarnates the general will of the people, legislating whatever the majority wants.
Despite the popular notion that the Constitution is a democratic document it is decidedly undemocratic! Progressives refuse to believe this and will reinterpret the Constitution or attempt to ignore it in order to establish their vision of political democracy in America.
This is the simple truth and we should not be surprised when Democrats behave in this way. The nature ot the thing determines its behavior. When a snake bites, its not because he doesn't like you or that he disagrees with you, he is just being a snake! When a liberal Democrat acts on his democratic presuppositions he will inevitably violate an undemocratic Constitution.
Oct '10
Re: Constitutional Hijinks
flownover
JM Hanes
· Jan 6 at 9:14am
It's not hypocritical to remind people that we are a constitutional democracy.
· Jan 6 at 9:32am
Edited on Jan 06 at 11:47 am
Hate to disagree: we are in fact a Constitutional Federal Republic!