Yes, Let’s DO Heed the Constitution. For Starters.*UPDATED




 This is as far as I got today in your piece on the Constitution, Supremacy, et cetera:

“You might be wondering how all these initiatives square with the Supremacy Clause, which
states that enforceable statutes passed by the federal government trump all conflicting state laws,
with the Supreme Court having the final word on the constitutionality of state laws.”
The reason I didn’t read any farther in your article is because this is the actual text of the “Supremacy Clause”:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”
Yes, that’s right.  I looked in vain in the supremacy clause for where it said “enforceable statutes”    and couldn’t find it.  Do you not think it a little presumptive on your part to be chastising conservatives for not following the Constitution when you write stuff like that?
Now to be fair, you did somewhat correct yourself when you provided Marbut’s explanation , that the fed laws must be constitutional  (Okay, I did read on down a few lines) which is based on the “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” clause.   You went on to say, incredibly :
This is obviously true, but gets us nowhere.”    
Good God, man. You write an entire piece claiming people are ignoring the constitution, and when they cite it to you verbatim, you have the gall to claim “Yeah, but that gets us nowhere”???  After having yourself mangled it???

“This is obviously true, but gets us nowhere.”

Heh.  That is an absolutely classic line, Mr. Re.  Thank you for that.  It explains so much, on so many levels.

Okay, to go the extra mile, to be excessively fair to you, for some silly reason, I’ll now go ahead and read the rest of your piece to see if you perchance have a valid point …………………………………………….Nope.
You compare a lot of apples and oranges in the remainder of your piece and you make a lot of surmises based on past history and past behavior, but you you don’t make any points relative to the discussion because the issue being forced by the behavior of the current administration has never been forced before.  Yes, there has been “enforcement” of federal drug laws and Brown v. Board decisions  and equal treatment/equal protection clauses and all the rest.  But we are in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness territory now, Mr. Re.  The Obama Administration is forcing issues that have never been forced before.  Contrary to the title of your piece, those patriots you speak of are not at all misguided and beyond that they are not trying to protect the Constitution.  They are trying to protect rights that preceded it.  For, as you may have heard, or maybe not, the Constitution merely codified things.
If you want to delve into this, it might be a good idea to make accurate citations of relevant text, to begin with, and not try to get away with claiming something is there when it isn’t.  Christine O’Donnell’s opponent thought he got away with it – he didn’t.  Christine was the clear winner.  So don’t be that guy.
But most importantly, do not forget, when discussing who can do what to whom on whose turf, that there is not one iota of the federal government, not one branch, not one officer, not one Cabinet Department, that created itself.  Neither is there one Article of, or one Amendment to, the Constitution of the United States that was created by the federal government.  The enforcement powers of the federal government that you go on about stop where the states, or the people, say they stop.
And even more important than that, as a personal matter, you probably do not want to be on the wrong side of the ‘shall not be infringed’ issue.  As I noted above, we are heading into new territory and those “We The Peoples” out there are passionate about it.
So thanks for the helpful tips to conservatives about the Constitution but ……no thanks.

*Update:  See here for Gary Marbut’s excellent rebuttal of Mr. Re’s opinion.

Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.
Previous articleFive States That Embrace Barbarism
Next articleLincoln, Zero Dark Thirty and (Les) Miserable(s) Obama
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments