A young soldier, or perhaps an ex-soldier, does a little educating of the politicians at a meeting with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) or her staffers. And he’s right:
He wants an apology from McCaskill – and check out the reception he gets.
This is the elephant in the room that is continually ignored by those who wish to exert power and control.
It is the focal point of the battle between the forces of freedom and the forces of government control. Those who do not treasure freedom see no reason to respect the plain English restrictions in the Constitution. They believe they can stretch it to cover the special thing they want. And then, once that succeeds, keep stretching for the next special thing, until the simply-stated limitations on the Federal government become meaningless.
I will never accept that the Constitution is as meaningless as foolish politicians and do-gooder leftists believe. Until the end, I will believe in the limitations as they are stated, with no “living Constitution” BS. Because accepting the axiom that the Constitution means something different from its clear language, or that the clear language can simply be ignored because of changing times, means granting to those who wish the government to exert power without limit have won.
It may take a while for the government fetishists to consolidate their power, but the end game is not in doubt. We have seen that government intrusions into freedom are d*mn near impossible to remove once they are initially accepted. So we have an almost monotonic movement to more government and less freedom. All because those who hold political power no longer believe there are any meta-legal restrictions on what they can do. There are only practical restrictions, which they grow more adept at circumventing every year.
What! are you trying to say that the Senate really DOESN’T have authority to ask Baseball players if they’ve taken steroids? That the House of Representatives really DOESN’T have authority over the NCAA championships?
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
and this kid, if he doesn’t run for office…dammit…he should….and hopefully the people who live in his area would vote for him and he wouldn’t turn into a get-along, go-along slime bag who’s main job in life became staying in office.
“I Love This Kid”
I have looked on Youtube, where is her reply? Does anyone know?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
How do you *unbreak* a broken rule that spans multiple generations at least?
Where, in the Constitution, are the disicplinary requirements spelled out for politicians violations of the rules as written?
Without penalty, there will be infraction(s).
This is largely at the base of all gov’t wrong doings, that their is little in the way of penalty for violation and what penalty their is is glacially slow and usually meager.
The Constitution was written in a time when honor was held as the highest thing and truth above all else, but today those 2 things mean nothing to most people it seems (remember the *character matters* fiasco?) so it was impossible for the framers to imagine a time when the words they so plainly wrote back then could possibly be misconstrued or flat out ignored by a truthful and honorable people.
The last amendment should spell out the penalties for infractions or attempts thereof, and if this was done hardly a poltician today would not be jailed within a week.
If this gets too much airtime, I’m sure you’ll find out exactly his military status. You’ll also find out his yearly income, IRS record, sexual orientation, …
I would expect he’d get the full Joe the Plumber treatment.
Creative 86 said: The last amendment should spell out the penalties for infractions or attempts thereof, and if this was done hardly a poltician today would not be jailed within a week.
Isnt’t this what is happening in Honduras?
Hmmpph! who would you rather believe, someone who isn’t smart or rich enough to get into college and is forced to go to Iraq, or a Constitutional law (or other) professor? Why, that kid probably doesn’t have any initials at all after his name.
If he wants to run against her, he’s got my $$$