NYT Editorialist: You Know What's Really Holding America Back? The Constitution, That's What

Big fan of unchecked power and tyranny, I guess. This isn't surprising. Certain soft minds have a natural attraction to Strong Men on White Horses.

If we acknowledged what should be obvious that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by We the people is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Posted by: Ace at 05:33 PM



Comments

1 If you don't get rid of that evil Constitution, I'll leave the country.

Posted by: Piers Morgan and I'm serial, totes at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (gCa4h)

2 Where are the lace wigs?

Posted by: Wandering Lost at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (GEFtS)

3
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (hc3eM)

4 Um, does this mean we're about to be subjected to a National Conversation about the Constitution's value by the media?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (QKKT0)

5 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 05:36 PM (hc3eM)

6 But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try
extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give
real freedom a chance.


And I just happen to have a plan.

Posted by: A. Hitler at December 31, 2012 05:37 PM (QKKT0)

7 The guy's a law professor! It's like a professor of astronomy putting the earth at the center of the universe....

Posted by: yadisneck at December 31, 2012 05:37 PM (Ekr+t)

8 rights. pffft. who needs rights? let's just form a drum circle and cry.

Posted by: tangonine at December 31, 2012 05:37 PM (x3YFz)

9 If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 05:38 PM (hc3eM)

10 This fuck head also wrote that the Constitution had "downright evil provisions." He is, by the way, a constitutional law professor.

Dear God help us.

Please.

Posted by: RG3 at December 31, 2012 05:38 PM (IvvrO)

11 Democracy is fine until the Neanderthals want to get in on the act.

Posted by: The New York Times at December 31, 2012 05:38 PM (QKKT0)

12 Gosh golly, gee whiz, NTY, does that mean we can have Barack and Moochelle to rule over us forever from whatever playground (separate) they are currently gracing?

/sarc off

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at December 31, 2012 05:39 PM (kXoT0)

13

"... a country ruled by We the people is impossibly utopian."

ZOMG!

That was the whole point of the US Constitution. Utopia is impossible because men, all men, are corruptible. So the best alternative is a republic.



Posted by: Soothsayer at December 31, 2012 05:39 PM (LPRBM)

14
"Constitutional bondage"...?

Like um, being bound by Freedom of Speech?
This is proof that liberal journalists are truly brain damaged.

Posted by: wheatie at December 31, 2012 05:39 PM (K4wCe)

15 NTY..No Thank You

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at December 31, 2012 05:39 PM (kXoT0)

16 "Real freedom." That's what you want, isn't it?

Posted by: Pol Pot at December 31, 2012 05:39 PM (QKKT0)

17 Certain soft minds have a natural attraction to Strong Men on White Horses.

A mind isn't the only soft thing on this guy. Seriously, I can't think of many better examples of lots of words saying precisely nothing.

Posted by: pep at December 31, 2012 05:40 PM (6TB1Z)

18 liberal false neutrality: let's be open-minded about interpreting the Constitution, provided it leads to our desired outcomes

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 05:40 PM (60GaT)

19 Constitutional Bondage: 50 Shades of Red, White and Blue.

Posted by: Jason Booth at December 31, 2012 05:40 PM (7RoxY)

20 doesn't matter, this country is already screwed

Posted by: greg at December 31, 2012 05:40 PM (kmFhU)

21 The *only* good news is that drones like that are the first to go after the revolution.

Because the last thing a new dictatorship wants around are a bunch of freakin' revolutionaries!!!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 31, 2012 05:40 PM (bxiXv)

22
The Founders demostrated that a monarchy is not the way to go, not even a half-ass monarchy tempered by a parliament.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 31, 2012 05:41 PM (3oX3m)

23 New York Times to the US:
"We decide, you suffer."

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 31, 2012 05:41 PM (fx1PU)

24 Hey, shut the hell up! The Constitution is a living, breathing document. "Constitutional professor" Barack Obama told me so.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 31, 2012 05:41 PM (Agn5J)

25 "If we acknowledged what should be obvious that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. "

How about we try something novel and admit that the language of the constitution is not broad? That there are no emanations and penumbras? No secret text? Nah, we need a living constitution. Up until it gets in the way of even the most ridiculous interpretations, then we don't need a constitution at all.

Posted by: BSKB at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (4KWOY)

26 I, for one, welcome our new totalitarian overlords.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp Voted For Kodos at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (Agn5J)

27 A con law prof who doesn't get checks and balances. A fascist and a disgrace on every possible level.

Posted by: Real Joe at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (PD2ad)

28 The NYT is a longtime fan of dictatorships and totalitarian states, anyway.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (bxiXv)

29 The good thing is that these people are perilously close to admitting that they want a dictatorship. The bad thing is that lots of folks seem to agree with them, as long as the soma keeps on flowing.

Posted by: pep at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (6TB1Z)

30 Be careful of what you ask for libs. If the constitution goes, seccession is on the table. And Texas WILL go.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 05:42 PM (3wlvV)

31 Just think of the kind of judges his training will produce. I am glad we have no children and that we are in our mid 60's. You poor younger ones will suffer for a very very long time before they pull your plug.

Posted by: LYNNDH at December 31, 2012 05:43 PM (mr9Ns)

32 Theydo realize that without the Constitution, there will be no freedom of the press, right?

Posted by: Bill R. at December 31, 2012 05:43 PM (QnRSM)

33 The Constitution is a living breathing document, but children up to age three are just a clump of cells.

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 05:43 PM (NIZHJ)

34
They're petty open about their desires now aren't they?

Posted by: ette at December 31, 2012 05:43 PM (nqBYe)

35
If we acknowledged what should be obvious that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey.

It's not the language of the Constitution that's broad. It's the "interpretation" of the plain meaning and intent of that language that seems to be the problem, i.e. "penumbras" That, and the wholesale perversion of language which the Leftards specialize in, which is pretty much void of meaning.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at December 31, 2012 05:43 PM (yiIja)

36 33
The Constitution is a living breathing document, but children up to age three are just a clump of cells.


Posted by: Butters


+1,000

Posted by: Wyatt Earp Voted For Kodos at December 31, 2012 05:44 PM (Agn5J)

37 Bill R. They think they are above it all. Somewhat like the Iranian liberals who allied themselves with the Ayatollah. They got a very nice wall to stand before.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 31, 2012 05:44 PM (fx1PU)

38 "we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who
can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate."

mature and tolerant debate, like a video of Paul Ryan pushing an old woman off a cliff.

I need to read the whole article before I say the guy is a loony.

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (bJm7W)

39 And yet, were I to have this man killed, I'd be the one going to prison.

Hell of a country we got.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (QupBk)

40 28- so true; cheerleaders for Stalin, Castro, Chavez and now the MB in Egypt. Elites support the elite over the lumpen proles....

Posted by: yadisneck at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (Ekr+t)

41 and people pay to read this shit



America is amazing

starting a fight with people who have guns and value liberty


Posted by: Jake in ID at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (jfSqj)

42 I hope that as a "constitutional scholar" he also realizes that the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights are given by the Creator and only reaffirmed in the Constitution.

Posted by: Bill R. at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (QnRSM)

43

Leftists' problems with the Constitution stem fromthe Left'sauthoritative nature. The "good" as defined by them, is more important than silly notions of liberty, privacy, and the enjoyment of private business and the wealth generated by same.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (1Y+hH)

44 I hate realizing some citizens are this untrustworthy.

Posted by: ette at December 31, 2012 05:45 PM (nqBYe)

45 I suspect he doesn't want NO constitution, just a constitution that he happens to like, with no icky gun rights and federalism and free speech for people he dislikes. He probably considers this to be fair and reasonable.

(Which raises the question: how do you deal with a person who doesn't think you're really a human being?)

Posted by: joncelli at December 31, 2012 05:46 PM (CWlPF)

46 This is actually pretty typical of the teaching pedagogy at some Law Schools around the country. Don't be surprised that your intellectual bettershave such a dim view of giving us mouth breathers anything like personal rights and some nebulous notion of 'freedom'.

They would make us all kulaks and peasants to be ruled by the Vanguard of the Proletariat.

Again and again, the same patterns appear.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at December 31, 2012 05:46 PM (Md8Uo)

47 The NYT is a longtime fan of dictatorships and totalitarian states, anyway.

What?

Posted by: Walter Duranty at December 31, 2012 05:46 PM (QKKT0)

48 I have often wondered if there is an upper limit to the number that can be adequately represented in a representative republic.

● With 330+ million people represented by the same number of congressman, one person (mis)represents many more people than in the past.

● Decisions that affect everyday life are being made farther and farther away from everyday people.

●Even smaller republics within (States like California) are too big to adequately represent voters.

Should the US be broken down into smaller pieces?

Posted by: Beorn at December 31, 2012 05:47 PM (dGF4J)

49
Since I'm not gonna click the link can some moron tell me who is the author of this POS?

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 31, 2012 05:47 PM (tOkJB)

50 Again and again, the same patterns appear.

Human nature, do you speak it?

Posted by: pep at December 31, 2012 05:47 PM (6TB1Z)

51 we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Truth

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 05:47 PM (+jF/U)

52 "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional
political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues
and inflamed our public discourse."

what an asshat. "kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues"? I presume he thinks the whole country is like a college campus with its ever-growing rules of political correctness. Remind me not to write my congress critter to give even more money for college loans.

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 05:48 PM (bJm7W)

53 Whoops. PurpAv beat me to it. And got the quote correct.
Hey, I've been dead since 1950. I'm tired.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 05:48 PM (+jF/U)

54 Honest question: Do Law Schools suck the brains out of their enrolees prior to graduation or do they enter the Hallowed Halls this motherfucking stupid?

Posted by: Jaws at December 31, 2012 05:48 PM (A3yiq)

55 The good thing is that these people are perilously close to admitting that they want a dictatorship. The bad thing is that lots of folks seem to agree with them, as long as the soma keeps on flowing.

Remember that up until Hitler invaded the USSR, he was considered a good guy. Hitler and Mussilini were both heros of the progressive movement, and talking about the need for a dictatorship in this country was considered fashionable intellectualism.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (o1kXv)

56 What was it Public Law 62-F that fixed the size of the House at 435 members?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (fx1PU)

57 >we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage



"Freedom is slavery"

Orwell was so prophetic, it's scary

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (8sCoq)

58 Should the US be broken down into smaller pieces?

Add more representatives. Many more, maybe up to 5000 or so. Make it harder to buy a majority.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (QupBk)

59 LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (NIZHJ)

60 "If we acknowledged what should be obvious that much constitutional
language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of
positions"

right off the start this is loaded. this is why it's impossible to have any meaningful debate with a lot of liberals, they present their beliefs as apolitical "common sense" to an absurd degree

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (60GaT)

61 Georgetown Law.

No surprise there.



Posted by: torquewrench at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (gqT4g)

62 The Editorial I want to see is the one when they cease publishing..

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (jE38p)

63 We love America too much to permit allegiance to its founding documents.

Posted by: Asshats and Commies and The NYTimes, Oh My! at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (eHIJJ)

64 The bonds of the Constitution are slavery. Real freedom comes from unrestrained government.

Posted by: no good deed at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (mjR67)

65

Well at least the professional left is dropping the pretense.

They've replace the Ammendment Process with judicial activism, replaced Constitutional Law with stare decisis. With the broadening of Federal powers, we are barely a republic.

The right to an abortion, the right to housing, the right to income, the right to healthcare are specifically enumerated in "their" Constitution, but Freedom of Religion, The Right to Bear Arms, and States rights aren't REALLY in the Constitution..... if you listen to fucktards like this guy.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (9MmIU)

66 Somewhere Thomas Friedman is smiling. Beneath his porn-stache.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (+jF/U)

67 We should all know that this isn't just a random journolist writing his random musings in an obvious anti-American newspaper.

The motivation for writing this came from the WH regime.

Get ready, folks. The leftist bulldozer is warming up.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (4ME3G)

68
ays give up our bondage ..who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Do they believe THEY are mature and self governing? They who ask for everyone else to cough up for every aspect of their lives ? They decide what's to be eaten or smoked, They decide oil, gas, or unicorn farts?
We are to listen to these hedonistic brats about responsible disccussions?

Posted by: ette at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (nqBYe)

69 "Should the US be broken down into smaller pieces?"

No, we just have to return to federalism and let the states be sovereign again.

Posted by: MrShad at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (Xqfwb)

70 54
Honest question: Do Law Schools suck the brains out of their enrolees
prior to graduation or do they enter the Hallowed Halls this
motherfucking stupid?




Have you seen the jug-eared fuck sitting in the Oval Office?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (UOM48)

71 LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (NIZHJ)


Shit. Is he an MOT? Sounds like it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (jE38p)

72 Ah it was Public Law 62-5. Should have checked my own blog first.
http://annapuna.blogspot.com/2012/11/irrelevant-electoral-college.html

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (fx1PU)

73 Over-reach, term 2. This will not end well.

Posted by: small town girl at December 31, 2012 05:50 PM (rf20m)

74 1 If you don't get rid of that evil Constitution, I'll leave the country.

Posted by: Piers Morgan and I'm serial, totes at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (gCa4h)




Offer accepted! Let me help you pack.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 31, 2012 05:51 PM (IvVLN)

75 54 Honest question: Do Law Schools suck the brains out of their enrolees prior to graduation or do they enter the Hallowed Halls this motherfucking stupid?
Posted by: Jaws at December 31, 2012 05:48 PM (A3yiq)

They put them all in a hypnotic trance on the first day of 1L. Makes them more tractable.

Posted by: joncelli at December 31, 2012 05:51 PM (CWlPF)

76
tolerant lefty debate

Kill the Rich!

Kill jews!
kill the Kch's!

Kill Bush!

no tx.

Posted by: ette at December 31, 2012 05:51 PM (nqBYe)

77 Whites horses?

Racist.

Posted by: dogfish at December 31, 2012 05:51 PM (N2yhW)

78 ....and talking about the need for a dictatorship in this country was considered fashionable intellectualism.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (o1kXv)

----

Still is. Ever hear leftists speak in glowing terms about the "Chinese Model"???

Posted by: fixerupper at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (9MmIU)

79 Every day I'm more convinced that we need a Constituational Convention. Get the left to lay all their cards on the table for what they want to do to society, and then offer them the chance to break up the US into two nations and go our seperate ways.
I bet they'd jump at the chance.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (o1kXv)

80 As I have observed for many years, the best way to kill the Constitution is to ignore it, which is something our own court system is becoming very good at.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (yiIja)

81 Must have taken Barak Obama's Constitutional Scholar's class.

Posted by: ette at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (nqBYe)

82 Although, with the Constitution gone, that means there's no Union, since the Constitution defines and binds the Union.

So that equates to, essentially, instant painless secession. With the individual States once again free to chart their own destinies, freed from Fedzilla's shackles.

Republic of Texas, anyone?

(scratches chin thoughtfully with a faraway expression and a faint grin)

Posted by: torquewrench at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (gqT4g)

83 54 Honest question: Do Law Schools suck the brains out of their enrolees prior to graduation or do they enter the Hallowed Halls this motherfucking stupid?

Posted by: Jaws at December 31, 2012 05:48 PM (A3yiq)




As a law school graduate, the answer is YES.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (IvVLN)

84 I fucking hate liberals. I wish they'd all jump into a flaming lake of fire dressed in polyester jumpsuits doused in toluene.

Posted by: DangerGirl at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (GrtrJ)

85 Don't know about everybody else, but this scares the shit out of me.

Posted by: redneek24 at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (/DeBx)

86
If you don't get rid of that evil Constitution, I'll leave the country.


Posted by: Piers Morgan and I'm serial, totes at December 31, 2012 05:35 PM (gCa4h)
And I will pack your bags, buy your ticket, drive you to the airport and even give you a big ol' sloppy-wet kiss goodbye.

Posted by: antisocialist at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (Ahxbg)

87 re: "I have often wondered if there is an upper limit to the number that can be adequately represented in a representative republic."

One.

Calling rule "representation" doesn't change what it is.

Posted by: oblig. at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (cePv8)

88 He clerked for Thurgood Marshall.

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (NIZHJ)

89 I want some states to secede in place. Quit taking federal money, quit enforcing federal mandates.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (QupBk)

90 "If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at
least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a
good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a
tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments."

Understand the views of others? Send this article to Chris Matthews.

You know this guy thinks that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms: really means the right of the state. You know that he thinks "Congress shall make no law" means "unless we need to."

Bet he makes a ton of money, too.

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (bJm7W)

91 I'm starting to believe that this country is too big and devolution back to the states is the only thing that will keep things from getting out of hand.

The US would no longer exist but the different regions would (have to) form a union. Let the East and West Coasts give socialism the test that socialists say it has never been rightfully given.

But a country with 310MM people is clearly ungovernable in the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

Just throwin this out there. I'm not actually sold on it myself.

Posted by: CozMark at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (AogGt)

92 No, we just have to return to federalism and let the states be sovereign again.

That's nice. Now how do you propose to convince the other side to go along with that idea? The only way you are going to get federalism again is to reach a point where the alternative is a complete breakup of the country.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (o1kXv)

93 I fucking hate liberals. I wish they'd all jump into a flaming lake of fire dressed in polyester jumpsuits doused in toluene.
Posted by: DangerGirl at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (GrtrJ)


You think so much like me that if I were not already married or if I were an old fashioned Mormon, I'd ask you to marry me.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 05:54 PM (jE38p)

94 yep, here at Ace's Place we love our Constitution - except when it's too Constitution-ie

Posted by: Secession of the Plebs at December 31, 2012 05:54 PM (m6OUa)

95 I looked up several states' oaths for becoming an attorney. They all start like this:

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
of this state.


I guess this one forgot his oath.

Posted by: GnuBreed at December 31, 2012 05:54 PM (ccXZP)

96 Make sure you call yourself a ditch digger or a taxi driver and not a columnist when Year Zero of Utopia arrives, you Effin' Crowbar of Incredibly Dense Material.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (eHIJJ)

97 I have often wondered if there is an upper limit to the number that can be adequately represented in a representative republic. With 330+ million people represented by the same number of congressman, one person (mis)represents many more people than in the past. Decisions that affect everyday life are being made farther and farther away from everyday people.Even smaller republics within (States like California) are too big to adequately represent voters.Should the US be broken down into smaller pieces?
Posted by: Beorn at December 31, 2012 05:47 PM (dGF4J)


----------------------------------------------------


The Constitution addresses this very thing. First, enumerated powers. Second, the 10th Amendment.

Read it. It's all in there.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (4ME3G)

98 Still is. Ever hear leftists speak in glowing terms about the "Chinese Model"???

Yup, except now they generally have to couch it in appropriate language. That language is going away, and they're getting a lot more brazen in their approach.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (o1kXv)

99 er 82: no no, not allowed, that violates some rule that's not in the Constitution. If you want to secede, look at Gerg's chin. Eww.

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (bJm7W)

100 Someone should tell Louis Michael about the concept of "elections."

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (2ArJQ)

101 That they're not even bothering to hide it anymore is distressing. 20 years ago I had law school professors who believed exactly this, but would never admit it.

Our country and its culture has changed so much since then that anti-constitutionalism, once radical, is now mainstream.

Posted by: angler at December 31, 2012 05:55 PM (SwjAj)

102 The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp.

---"1984', G. Orwell

This is what comes of abandoning the shackles of republics and constitutions.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 05:56 PM (+jF/U)

103 Great speech by George Will from a few weeks back (h/t to Peggy Noonan)- an explanation of American Exceptionalism and the centrality of the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths...") to the American Experience. This is a fine antidote to the NYT poison from Prof Seidman: http://rap.wustl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/George-Will-lecture-text.pdf

Posted by: yadisneck at December 31, 2012 05:56 PM (Ekr+t)

104 But a country with 310MM people is clearly ungovernable in the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

Just throwin this out there. I'm not actually sold on it myself.
Posted by: CozMark at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (AogGt)

I'm slowly, reluctantly coming to that conclusion. Break it up into three or four parts, let people move around freely until they find the place where they are comfortable, and then find out who was right and who was wrong.

Posted by: joncelli at December 31, 2012 05:56 PM (CWlPF)

105 LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 05:49 PM (NIZHJ)





Shit. Is he an MOT? Sounds like it


It's well-known in academic circles that the Holocaust was brought on mainly by Nazi frustration with an overly-restrictive German constitution.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 31, 2012 05:56 PM (QKKT0)

106 Meanwhile my wife's cousin is married to the only conservative on that side of the family. 2 Tours in Iraq and a Tour in Afghanistan and now he will soon be laid off because he is a civilian DOD guard at the Pentagon. I hate liberals

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 05:57 PM (jE38p)

107 Ignore the Constitution? No more Roe v. Wade? No more Miranda? No more 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery)? No more 16th Amendment (income tax)? Whoo-hoo!

Posted by: msr at December 31, 2012 05:57 PM (UMRVv)

108 That's nice. Now how do you propose to convince the other side to go along with that idea? The only way you are going to get federalism again is to reach a point where the alternative is a complete breakup of the country.

Omlette. Eggs. Some disassembly required.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 05:57 PM (3wlvV)

109 Libtards today are like cons were in 2001/2002. Most cons were just fine with the Patriot Act. After all Bush was in charge, we had nothing to fear. Today Obama's the king, so libs have nothing to fear from an unconstrained president.

Both sides always forget their guy will not be in power forever.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 05:58 PM (HDgX3)

110 O/T

Best thing that happened to me all day/week: Douchebag SCAD student sporting an Obama 2012 sticker cuts me off in the turn lane today and runs the red light.

He'll be getting a nice gift for the New Year....a big fine for running the light, thanks to the camera that took a pic of his tag.

Karma is a bitch, SCAD Boy.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 05:58 PM (UOM48)

111 I'm slowly, reluctantly coming to that conclusion. Break it up into
three or four parts, let people move around freely until they find the
place where they are comfortable, and then find out who was right and
who was wrong.

Yeah, we already have fifty of those smaller parts.

Posted by: no good deed at December 31, 2012 05:58 PM (mjR67)

112 Well he's right.
The Constitution is holding HIS "America" back...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2012 05:58 PM (PL2Yo)

113 If he's saying it's time for "anything goes", I'm down.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 31, 2012 05:58 PM (Rq+Vo)

114 June 1987:NYT Co.'s share price = $18.73. December 2012:NYT Co.'s share price =$8.53. Any further questions or concerns?

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at December 31, 2012 05:59 PM (pmsMR)

115 well, anyway, let's enjoy the new year's revelries and then get ready to fight. don't know what other options we have. You know Obama isn't going to suddenly thing, you know, this stimulus thing really isn't working...

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 05:59 PM (bJm7W)

116 You sure about that Dr. Jones?

Posted by: Short Round at December 31, 2012 05:59 PM (NIZHJ)

117 Methinks it is time to feed the kittehs, feed myself with sushi, and perhaps turn off the brain to watch the Jack Reacher movie.. even with Tom Cruise.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 31, 2012 05:59 PM (fx1PU)

118 Dear New York Times,
GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

Posted by: Sir Robert the Flatulent at December 31, 2012 06:00 PM (V1q4Q)

119 Does Georgetown give tuition refunds?

.......cuz I think this Scholar caught that Clinton Clot that's goin' around.

That piece took more left turns than a NASCAR Race.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 31, 2012 06:00 PM (aZ6ew)

120 Infiltrate institutions - check
Spread propaganda - check
Deny, deflect make false counter-accusations - check
Take the outrageous anti-Americanism to eleven - check
Refuse any sane negotiations - check
Demonize the enemy - check
Divide , enrage, inflame - check


Accuse conservatives with starting the resultant Civil War II - pending

Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 31, 2012 06:00 PM (EZl54)

121 The only way you are going to get federalism again is to reach a point where the alternative is a complete breakup of the country.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 31, 2012 05:53 PM (o1kXv)


-------------------------------------------------


There'll never be a complete breakup. There will be seperations, though.

I've been writing my governer and legislatures and encouraging them to start seperating themselves from DC. And it could all be done legally and constitutionally.


Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (4ME3G)

122 Break it up into three or four parts, let people move around freely until they find the place where they are comfortable, and then find out who was right and who was wrong.

----
They.Wont.Do.It

They may be wretched... but they aint stoopid. They are fully aware that a nation of 100% takers wont cut it. To make their workers paradise functional requires the submission/subjugation/enslavement of the producing class.

They aint gonna sign up for letting us set up shop in Wyoming and Texas.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (9MmIU)

123 The Stupid is strong in this one.

Posted by: kqb29 at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (b1NQB)

124 I need to go take a break...have a drink or twenty and read junk food blogs for fun. I hope you all have a great New Year's Eve. God help us in 2013.

Posted by: DangerGirl at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (GrtrJ)

125 First thing I'm going to do in Louis Michael Seidman's new America is rape Loius Michael Seidman.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (Rq+Vo)

126 111

thing is this new U.S. split wouldn't be very contiguous

coastal California vs. inland, Austin Texas vs. Dallas Texas, etc. etc.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:01 PM (60GaT)

127 I Will Not Comply

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:02 PM (8sCoq)

128 States are the basic building block.

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (NIZHJ)

129 The Constitution and today's NYT are two pieces of paper.

One is the DNA of the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

Another is suitable to line a bird cage.

And the only reason Louis Michael Seidman (who?) got to display his mental masturbations in one is BECAUSE of the protections of free speech guaranteed by the other. But the professor is too ignorant to appreciate the irony of his own drivel.

Posted by: USA at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (RIg+t)

130 Here's the thing about secession.....DC has all the big guns. And I don't mean the AR-15s. Didn't some states try that once like 100 years ago or something?

Although then again, would libtards in NYC and SF care that much if Idaho and Wyoming wanted to go their own separate ways? Texas has a lot of wealth and a lot of liberals. Idaho, Wyoming, Utah....just a lot of cows and stuff (in the minds of liberals anyway).

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (HDgX3)

131 57 >we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage
---

This argument "open-minded" appeals to two kinds of people:

1) Those who think they're going to be "the deciders".

2) Flakes who have no concept of why the predictability and equal applicability of fixed laws would not only be a safeguard against tyranny, but might also be useful in coordinating activities like buying and selling.

The media, politicians, and collegiate intelligentsia comprise #1.

The Lena Dunham types and all the sheeple who follow pop cultural cues comprise #2. They're the kind that extol "spontaneity" as some kind of symbol of personal autonomy even while sucking up public funds to support said "autonomy". In other words, everyone you hated being assigned to do a group project with.

These are the 51%. They will always come up with some shitty excuse.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (Y5I9o)

132 As long as we're tossing Orwell out there....

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

I suspect this makes the good professor mucho en fuego...

Sort of all ties into the "let it burn" theme, eh?

Posted by: Whiskey_Joe at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (RIm0W)

133 Don't know about everybody else, but this scares the shit out of me.
Posted by: redneek24 at December 31, 2012 05:52 PM (/DeBx)

Right there with you. These coordinated, sustainedmedia campaigns are like an artillery barrage before the big push.

Posted by: troyriser at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (vtiE6)

134 And the only reason Louis Michael Seidman (who?) got to display his mental masturbations in one is BECAUSE of the protections of free speech guaranteed by the other. But the professor is too ignorant to appreciate the irony of his own drivel.
Posted by: USA at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (RIg+t)


Outstanding!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:04 PM (jE38p)

135 >>>If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

This F*king illeterate wrote opinion published in the the NYT?

Who has apparently never read Federalist 10, Democracy in America, Politics of Aristotle, Plato's Republic? Whom all express severe reservation if not outright rebuke of majoritarian rule? With thousands of years of sound philosophy and political science saying it is wholly unwise if not outright folly to engage in such a course of governance, he offers not even lip service where a sound rebuttal of principal is due.

Surely our day of judgement is near when such regurgitated swill is considered fit to print in a periodical of note.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 06:04 PM (lVRSb)

136 I for one do not want my parakeet reading that twaddle.

Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 06:04 PM (NIZHJ)

137 A few short years ago, this asshole was probably huffing and puffing about the evil George Bush and the threat he posed to democracy. Once again, Orwell's definition of a liberal is proven: a power worshiper without power.

Posted by: Dirty Old Man at December 31, 2012 06:04 PM (f2qt0)

138 I'm slowly, reluctantly coming to that conclusion. Break it up into three or four parts, let people move around freely until they find the place where they are comfortable, and then find out who was right and who was wrong.
Posted by: joncelli at December 31, 2012 05:56 PM (CWlPF)

yeah! divide it up into separate entities that govern themselves... we could call them "States"
amazing no one has ever thought of this before.

Posted by: Secession of the Plebs at December 31, 2012 06:05 PM (m6OUa)

139 Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 06:04 PM (lVRSb)


That sure was a lot of fancy words.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 31, 2012 06:05 PM (IvVLN)

140 Attorneys swear an oath to the Constitution of the US.

I'd say stop bitching and find somebody in DC willing to file a complaint to get him disbarred.

Posted by: dg at December 31, 2012 06:06 PM (UmT4Q)

141
Clearly this is a last minute attempt by LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN to win the fucktard of the year award.

Posted by: Gordon undead Ramsay at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (9HhTH)

142 But the professor is too ignorant to appreciate the irony of his own drivel.
Posted by: USA at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (RIg+t)

_________

"Irony of his own drivel" is a good one. Cheers!

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (2ArJQ)

143 If you articulate abandoning the Constitution, are you not advocating the overthrow of the government?

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (8sCoq)

144 Republic of Texas, anyone?

Yes.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (d0Dmj)

145
times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify

times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue

times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify

times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling


Straight from "1984." Of course, I had no idea at the time that the New York Times would actually mimic my novel.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (+jF/U)

146 Clearly this is a last minute attempt by LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN to win the fucktard of the year award.

Posted by: Gordon undead Ramsay at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (9HhTH)

???? Why what happened to obama?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (jE38p)

147 I'm done with politics, political discussion, political punditry, fecal cliffs, et al, for the year. Period.

Onward to the scotch cabinet.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (4Mv1T)

148
And they wonder why guns stores are selling out of military-style weapons coast-to-coast.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (qkP36)

149 I'd say stop bitching and find somebody in DC willing to file a complaint to get him disbarred.

Posted by: dg at December 31, 2012 06:06 PM (UmT4Q)

__________________
HA HA HA HA HA! Rules are only for plebes.

Posted by: David Gergory at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (HDgX3)

150 States are the basic building block.
Posted by: Butters at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (NIZHJ) I disagree. The family is the basic building block. That's why they're working so hard on un-defining "family".

Posted by: bonhomme at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (A0glY)

151 TULSA 21 IOWA ST 17 3RD Q

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (8sCoq)

152 He used his middle name ha? I have a middle name and the only one who ever used it was my mother when I was in trouble?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:09 PM (jE38p)

153 Idaho, Wyoming, Utah....just a lot of cows and stuff (in the minds of liberals anyway).
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:03 PM (HDgX3)


--------------------------------------------


It's too fucking cold in those states. Let's send all the old poop liberals from NYC that live in FL and send them back to NY. Then settle FL. Better climate, beaches, bikinis.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:09 PM (4ME3G)

154 Clearly this is a last minute attempt by LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN to win the fucktard of the year award.

Maybe in a quieter time he'd have a hope. The competition this year is fierce.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 31, 2012 06:10 PM (QKKT0)

155 I disagree. The family is the basic building block. That's why they're working so hard on un-defining "family".

Posted by: bonhomme at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (A0glY)

_______________
What do you mean? Three lesbians raising a baby with their gay roommates is as much of a family as The Cleavers.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:10 PM (HDgX3)

156 A thought experiment: if this article had been written by a conservative following an election loss all media would switch into overdrive to publicize the thinking on the right side of the political divide.

It would be shouted from all rooftops that these anarchists must never be let near the levers of government, ever again.

This guy gets nods and the only people who are horrified, that's us, will be branded as sore losers.

Posted by: Decaf at December 31, 2012 06:10 PM (TJQ3a)

157 Onward to the scotch cabinet.


Posted by: Tobacco Road at December 31, 2012 06:08 PM (4Mv1T)
You're runnin' a little behind, aren't you? Do try to keep up...

Posted by: antisocialist at December 31, 2012 06:10 PM (Ahxbg)

158 I do not understand this nitwit. The genius of the Framers is that they recognized that human nature does not change. The safeguards in the BOR acknowledges this. I am a public high school teacher and even I know that!!

Posted by: Jmel at December 31, 2012 06:11 PM (9tSXa)

159 It's too fucking cold in those states. Let's send
all the old poop liberals from NYC that live in FL and send them back to
NY. Then settle FL. Better climate, beaches, bikinis.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:09 PM (4ME3G)

_______________
Have you been to Miami May - Sept? No thanks. If I get cold, I can put on a sweater. In Miami, I can't peel off my skin.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:11 PM (HDgX3)

160 I'm drinking at the moment, but I am can't drink like I used to and drugs are out of the question. Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (jE38p)

161 Remember, saying the Constitution means what it says is dangerously radical.


Posted by: Ghost of Robert Bork at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (60GaT)

162 Email your Congressthing or Senator and ask it if it considers the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (8sCoq)

163 NYT is not a big fan of the Constitution?........

I'm Shocked!

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (uis79)

164 Quoting Jones: "If you articulate abandoning the Constitution, are you not advocating the overthrow of the government?"

STOP THAT! The overwhelming logic of that statement is making our heads spin. Throw this man in jail!

Posted by: Publicity wing of the Obama Administration (a.k.a. the NYT) at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (CLkAH)

165
If we can amend the Bible, then surely we can amend the Constitution.

-- J. Pisspot Morgan, upper class British twit

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at December 31, 2012 06:12 PM (Jcd0S)

166 155

Big Love?

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:13 PM (60GaT)

167 Three lesbians raising a baby with their gay roommates is as much of a family as The Cleavers.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:10 PM (HDgX3)

_____

"Three Lesbians and a Baby." That has a ring to it, too.

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:13 PM (2ArJQ)

168 Big Love?
Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:13 PM (60GaT)


Actually I would bet they were conservatives

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:13 PM (jE38p)

169 Well one thing is clear, all of the most glaring examples of the potential pitfalls provided by the rights enumerated in The Constitution occur with the daily publication of the New York Times.

We are free to abuse reason, fairness and the truth as they demonstrate with regularity.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 31, 2012 06:13 PM (aZ6ew)

170 What do you mean? Three lesbians raising a baby with their gay roommates is as much of a family as The Cleavers.

As long as they aren't too hard on the beaver.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (d0Dmj)

171 Heather has five parental units

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (60GaT)

172 Disbar him? He's a law prof, probably not a member of the bar, not a practicing attorney in the real world. Ivory tower all the way. Some things are so outlandishly stupid, only an intellectual could come up with them.

Posted by: Real Joe at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (PD2ad)

173 Three lesbians raising a baby with their gay roommates is as much of a family as The Cleavers.

As long as they aren't too hard on the beaver.
Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (d0Dmj)

Shit I shoulda thought of that one!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (jE38p)

174 Heh.....

the children don't like being held in check by a responsible Mom and Dad.

Guess they want another raise in their allowance.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at December 31, 2012 06:15 PM (6oBI1)

175 Disbar him? He's a law prof, probably not a member of the bar, not a
practicing attorney in the real world. Ivory tower all the way. Some
things are so outlandishly stupid, only an intellectual could come up
with them.

Lieawatha anyone?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:15 PM (d0Dmj)

176 There are fundamentally only four ways of looking at another's personhood:

"I'm a better human being than you are,"

"You're a better human being than I am,"

"WE ARE EQUALLY HUMAN," and

"One of us isn't human."

I suggest cramming this formulation down the throats of those who are being induced to sell us down the river. Point out that three of the four choices, writ large, lead either to aristocratic dictatorship or to total war. The more we persuade, the better chance we have...

Posted by: piercello at December 31, 2012 06:15 PM (E/6f0)

177 170 What do you mean? Three lesbians raising a baby with their gay roommates is as much of a family as The Cleavers.

As long as they aren't too hard on the beaver.


Is the beaver on the endangered species list?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows Hillary fainted from tight Spanx at December 31, 2012 06:15 PM (+jF/U)

178 As long as they aren't too hard on the beaver.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (d0Dmj)



Shit I shoulda thought of that one!

That's old. LOL

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:15 PM (d0Dmj)

179 There is only blood and iron. Give me 2 minutes with this fool and I will show him both.

pollice verso

Posted by: Quirinus Scumbagus at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (3xuEM)

180 As long as they aren't too hard on the beaver.
Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:14 PM (d0Dmj)


Three Lesbians and a Beaver!

(Thank you. I had it stuffed last night."

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (2ArJQ)

181 Constitutional Bondage: 50 Shades of Red, White and Blue.

It makes sense to the terminally stupid. S M is now viewed as the full expression of sexual relations therefore it figures that the consitution is now a constraint on achieving utopia (their politial orgasm).

Posted by: Decaf at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (TJQ3a)

182 Chick-Fil-A Bowl coming up- LSU v Clemson


this is a real football game between nationally ranked teams

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (8sCoq)

183 "Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"
----

Pure Tom-douchery. I an so fucking sick of Liberals making everything into identity politics and calling it "critical thinking", as though the studious avoidance of reasoned arguments were a sign of intellectual seriousness, just because you can call the other guy names.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (Y5I9o)

184 If you articulate abandoning the Constitution, are you not advocating the overthrow of the government?


Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:07 PM (8sCoq)


Yes but it probably wasn't the most seditious thing that dickweed wrote during the day.

Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (H17io)

185 It looks like my underdog pick of Tulsa will pay off. Not so much on my going with USC.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (QupBk)

186 sponsored by delicious chicken sandwiches

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:16 PM (8sCoq)

187 white horses are a racist dog whistle.

or something like that...

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 31, 2012 06:17 PM (8MasJ)

188 Nice beaver!

Posted by: Lt. Frank Drebin at December 31, 2012 06:17 PM (+jF/U)

189 who was silly enough to pick USC? i doubt the team will even phone it in, let alone show up.

they have all figured out that Lame Kiffin is an offensive genius.

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 31, 2012 06:18 PM (8MasJ)

190 183

you'd think since libs are all about teh nuance when it comes to "understanding" past radical-left associations they'd be able to understand that the fact people have certain failings doesn't discredit their principles

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:18 PM (60GaT)

191 If we acknowledged what should be obvious that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey.

*****

To me, this type of circumlocution comes from somebody trying to bend the meaning of a simple declarative sentence to suit a contrary purpose. In other words, I can do whatever I want, and we'll bend the rules later- moral relativism at the Constitutional level. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 31, 2012 06:18 PM (1OZSU)

192 opensecrets.org shows Seidman donated $1,500 to Obama during the 2012 campaign.

$2,000 to Obama in 2008

$3,000 to Kerry in 2004

That's a lotta scratch for a college prof.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:19 PM (hc3eM)

193 I'm confused!

Now that there is going to be a deal, The public acts like everything will be just fine.

What am I missing?

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:19 PM (uis79)

194 off topic, but have we linked to this yet?

how serious is hillary clinton s blood clot and hospitalization

http://tinyurl.com/aop2nc3

the author, a doctor, has his doubts

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 06:19 PM (bJm7W)

195
and deep too!

Posted by: That guy thats late to the jokes on a totally different thread at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (69Mdf)

196 What would they have been saying if they had lost the election?

Posted by: Decaf at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (TJQ3a)

197 "then surely we can amend the Constitution."

I take a lot of solace in the fact that our lawmakers are too paralyzed to even contemplate amending the Constitution. Both party platforms include calls to amend the Constitution in order to further restrict civil liberties, and there is exactly zero chance of either party actually succeeding. Not all the effects of gridlock are negative, IMO.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (Hz1zc)

198 And this is why the NYTimes is running a barrage of ads on tv begging people to shell out 99 cents to read their rag.

Posted by: nerdygirl at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (cA2ZD)

199 An example of how far out of whack things are was noted by a caller to Mark Steyn (hosting for Rush) today. Mainly, how can it be that two individuals (McConnell and Biden, neither with an IQ above room temperature) are negotiating the level of the confiscatory tax rates for next year in secret. Two political animals are deciding the amount that will be stolen from the fruit of your labors for years to come.

Basically, George III had a more open government!

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (Cnqmv)

200 Now that there is going to be a deal, The public acts like everything will be just fine.

What am I missing?
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:19 PM (uis79)


Why are you assuming they have a deal? Or that the Congress will pass it?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (jE38p)

201 196 What would they have been saying if they had lost the election?
Posted by: Decaf at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (TJQ3a)

_____

More Viagra!

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (2ArJQ)

202 197

dronez r comin' to getcha

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (60GaT)

203 that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions

If everything was already covered, then why did the Framers include a provision to amend it?

Posted by: no good deed at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (mjR67)

204 re 192: wasn't Fauxahontas Warren supposed to be getting $300G at Hahvahd?

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (bJm7W)

205
if Jason Garret is still employed it proves he is nothing more than a Chan Gailey type of head coach

Jerry Jones is running that team.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (E7Qlq)

206 Joe Theisman pushing prostate herbs on the tube.

How the mighty have fallen.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 06:22 PM (QupBk)

207 opensecrets.org shows Seidman donated $1,500 to Obama during the 2012 campaign.$2,000 to Obama in 2008$3,000 to Kerry in 2004That's a lotta scratch for a college prof.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:19 PM (hc3eM)


-----------------------------------------------


As I said, he didn't just write this on a whim. He was instructed to do so.

The drive to full tyranny is shifting to third gear.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:22 PM (4ME3G)

208 Accuse conservatives with starting the resultant Civil War II - pending
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 31, 2012 06:00 PM (EZl54)

The Left doesn't want a civil war. What they want is absolute power, control over every aspect of our lives along with the ability to make policy and programmatic decisions without the hinderance of an opposition. To do this, they must first eliminate as a threat those whom domestic terrorist Bill Ayers called 'diehard capitalists, those who can't be reeducated'. That would be us, we,you and me. Ayers advocated outright massliquidation but I think those he's mentored in his later years are more in favor of a a more sophisticated approach: suborn the media, manipulate public opinion, make formerly traditional, conventional beliefs and practices seem outdated and old-fashioned (evenabhorrent), discredit the opposition party and relegate it to the fringe, and then criminalize those most likely to cause trouble. A gun ban is a good way to criminalize me, in any case.

Once we're out of the way, utopia follows, I suppose.

Posted by: troyriser at December 31, 2012 06:22 PM (vtiE6)

209 Joe Theisman pushing prostate herbs on the tube.

How the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 06:22 PM (QupBk)


Yeah maybe, but in this new line of work he is less likely to get his leg bent backwards and broken like a twig

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:23 PM (jE38p)

210 197 "then surely we can amend the Constitution."


_____

And don't call me Shirley!

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:23 PM (2ArJQ)

211 http://www.whitepages.com/name/Louis-M-Seidman/Washington-DC/5bh74h4

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:23 PM (hc3eM)

212 Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (jE38p)


Wouldn't want Boner to cry in public would you? Of course there is going to be a deal because the RINOs will sell us out at the last minute, and if they can't do that in a timely manner, they will sell us out later! The common theme is that the RINOs will sell us out every time!

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at December 31, 2012 06:23 PM (Cnqmv)

213 What's a constitution?

Posted by: Low Information Voter/Stupid Fucking Idiot at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (BVkEs)

214 Hahaha oh wow. Was that a real op ed? I didnt read any comments yet but.... here's to your kids' college professors. How much do you pay for that education at Georgetown again?

Posted by: ElKomandante at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (7KfDT)

215

and Fonzy is hawking reverse mortgages on old people

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (4Ljxa)

216 I'm not sure about eliminating the Constitution, but there are some laws that should be stricken from the records!

Posted by: David Gregory at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (CBkgt)

217 Are Congressional Republicans Already Caving In on Gun Control?

http://is.gd/0Lf3z5

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (8sCoq)

218 "Joe Theisman pushing prostate herbs on the tube.



How the mighty have fallen."

Bruce Boxleitner's hocking hair-in-can!

Posted by: Zombie Garibaldi at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (I88Jc)

219 If everything was already covered, then why did the Framers include a provision to amend it?


Posted by: no good deed at December 31, 2012 06:21 PM (mjR67)


Humility in knowing that you can't think of every-fucking-thing within a short period of time and make it palatable enough for everybody approving it (in truth, it was almost a miracle that the Constitution was ratified). A trait which is sorely lacking in the JEF, the glowbull worming shitheads and other assorted political cocksuckers.

Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at December 31, 2012 06:25 PM (H17io)

220 As I said, he didn't just write this on a whim. He was instructed to do so.

But he was too stupid to get an unlisted home phone number first.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (hc3eM)

221 "McConnell and Biden, neither with an IQ above room temperature"

I'd bet I have a higher IQ than you good sir.

Posted by: Joe Biden campaigning artfully in 1988 at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (60GaT)

222 Yes, the masks are coming off now.

Anyone have any doubts why the left is hell-bent on disarming us?

What exactly is it that they want to do, but currently can't?

Posted by: rickl at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (sdi6R)

223 @191: In other words, I can do whatever I want, and we'll bend the rules later- moral relativism at the Constitutional level. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon
---

It comes from the Liberal tendency to see people as groups instead of individuals, and therefore to deny that statements have intentions and well-circumscribed meanings behind them. Maybe that's fine when you're dealing with a work of art or literature qua objet d'art and studying its reception as cultural commentary. But when you shoehorn everything into this, "all meaning is fluid; the text is in flux", undergraduate English major bullshit, society falls apart. That may not seem like such a big deal as you ponder going up for seconds at the faculty dining hall, but real people once fought real battles to force their self-appointed betters to set their words in stone and abandon tyrannical caprice.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (Y5I9o)

224
By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

pro-dictator. Possible communist. Likes Hitler and Stalin.

Posted by: Fresh at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (O7ksG)

225 I'd bet Seidman's smart enough to know the truth that "extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance" is pure Communist poison. I'd also bet he's willingly pouring this type of stuff in the ear of the young and impressionable. A Georgetown University professor. Disgusting.

It saddens me to think Seidman's words get an approving nod from many in our halls of government... and likely the President himself.

Looks like it really is time to up the PT regimen and get my affairs in order.

Posted by: The sound of battle in the distance at December 31, 2012 06:27 PM (XJ6Zy)

226 199 An example of how far out of whack things are was noted by a caller to Mark Steyn (hosting for Rush) today. Mainly, how can it be that two individuals (McConnell and Biden, neither with an IQ above room temperature) are negotiating the level of the confiscatory tax rates for next year in secret. Two political animals are deciding the amount that will be stolen from the fruit of your labors for years to come. Basically, George III had a more open government!
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at December 31, 2012 06:20 PM (Cnqmv) i heard that guy too, and I have been thinking the same thing myself.

Posted by: Secession of the Plebs at December 31, 2012 06:27 PM (m6OUa)

227 Posted by: David Gregory at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (CBkgt)

Don't worry David, we have found that selective enforcement, a willing bunch of media whores, and a pliant judiciary gets the same results.

Posted by: Eric "Red" Holder at December 31, 2012 06:27 PM (Cnqmv)

228 I'm sure there is going to be a deal...there is always a deal.

I'm convinced Obama wants to cause as much damage to Capitalism as possible...so what ever deal is made is going to be a bad deal for us.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:27 PM (uis79)

229 Jeebsus the "news" in Canada makes MSNBC look like Fox News. Feel like I'm behind the Iron Curtain.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue, currently trapped in Can a Duh at December 31, 2012 06:28 PM (w8EDn)

230 This turd is a 1%'er living in a very posh neighborhood in a huge house.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:28 PM (hc3eM)

231 Is it my imagination, but does the formatting suck even more tonight? Guess it is Pixy's New Year's Eve final FU for 2012.

Posted by: Eric at December 31, 2012 06:29 PM (Cnqmv)

232 I had a lib friend inform me that the FIRST amendment comes BEFORE the SECOND amendment THEREFORE it takes precedence.

Followed by a 'd'uh'.

I attempted to 'splain the distinction between ordinal numbering and nominative numbering vis-a-vis Constitutional amendments

But, alas, he was too teh smart to be taken in by grammar and logic.

d'uh.
_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:29 PM (RuUvx)

233 What exactly is it that they want to do, but currently can't?
Posted by: rickl at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (sdi6R)

Silence the opposition.

Posted by: troyriser at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (vtiE6)

234 I am guessing one of the "downright evil provisions" is the 2nd Admen. I have a feeling if one of his pet Admens were done away with he would sing a different tune. Amazing how some of these people think.

Posted by: Thorisin at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (jxir/)

235 hey, did anyone mention this: didn't Sandra Flook go to Georgetown U law school?

Posted by: mallfly at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (bJm7W)

236 buy guns everyone. At some point we will have another civil war.

Posted by: Fresh at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (O7ksG)

237 "If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments."

Come again?

Posted by: Catholic Church Renewing Its HealthCare Plan at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (BAS5M)

238 I had a lib friend inform me that the FIRST amendment comes BEFORE the SECOND amendment THEREFORE it takes precedence.

It's in alphabetical order, duh.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 06:30 PM (QupBk)

239 Oh my -- Pravda is praising Americans that are insistent on keeping their right to bear arms:

http://tinyurl.com/bfhcnyk (WZ)

The Twilight Zone was never this weird.

Posted by: GnuBreed at December 31, 2012 06:31 PM (ccXZP)

240 231
Is it my imagination, but does the formatting suck even more tonight? Guess it is Pixy's New Year's Eve final FU for 2012.


Posted by: Eric at December 31, 2012 06:29 PM (Cnqmv)

---
Party like it's 1993....

Posted by: CraigPoe at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (BVkEs)

241 i heard that guy too, and I have been thinking the same thing myself.

Posted by: Secession of the Plebs at December 31, 2012 06:27 PM (m6OUa)


He was one of the best callers I have heard in along time. Lots of good points. You just gotta love secret negotiations about public policy that will impact your very life and that of your descendants.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (Cnqmv)

242 THEREFORE it takes precedence

Well, then the 2nd takes precedence over all the rest...like the 5th, and 19th, right?

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (hc3eM)

243 Personally....I welcome our new Socialist OverLoads!

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (uis79)

244 Since this commie asshat thinks the Constitution is evil, I guess he won't mind if his evil rights are violated on a constant basis.

Posted by: TexBob at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (pUOpM)

245 232 I had a lib friend inform me that the FIRST amendment comes BEFORE the SECOND amendment THEREFORE it takes precedence.

Followed by a 'd'uh'.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:29 PM (RuUvx)
---

More undergrad English major bullshit: "If I can justify my words with something that sounds like a rational argument, then it is a rational argument. Moreover, it is a correct rational argument, therefore I do not need to listen to counterarguments or consider the possibility that I may be wrong. Because I'm not. [circle back to beginning. Rinse, repeat]"

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:32 PM (Y5I9o)

246 239 Oh my -- Pravda is praising Americans that are insistent on keeping their right to bear arms:

http://tinyurl.com/bfhcnyk (WZ)

The Twilight Zone was never this weird.
Posted by: GnuBreed


That's for sure. I saw that earlier today.

Posted by: rickl at December 31, 2012 06:33 PM (sdi6R)

247 Pravda is praising Americans that are insistent on keeping their right to bear arms

Not surprising. We traded places with the Soviet Union.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:33 PM (hc3eM)

248 But he was too stupid to get an unlisted home phone number first.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (hc3eM)


-----------------------------------------------


I never insinuated that he was intelligent.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:33 PM (4ME3G)

249 In Defense of the Constitution (But Not for the Reasons Stoopid Conservatives Think!!!)

Posted by: Coming soon to Slate Magazine at December 31, 2012 06:34 PM (60GaT)

250 For the record, I don't mean to bash undergrad English majors as a whole. The humanities can be every bit as rigorous and demanding as the sciences.

Unfortunately, these days they by and large are not.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:34 PM (Y5I9o)

251 What's really sad is that almost half the country probably agrees with him.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:35 PM (4ME3G)

252
I personally have no problem in throwing out the constitution as long as I get to make all the rules and all the laws. Ok Louis? I mean this gets rid of that darn constitution.

Oh, surely you didn't think we would let you decide? You did? Oh, well then, you're a dumbass.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 31, 2012 06:35 PM (69Mdf)

253 Drinking beer, eating Heath bars, greedily eyeing the ginger snaps. All the entertainment that cable - internet can provide.I think I could happily spend the next 3 years in this room (with regular re-supply missions of course). Knock twice when the 2016 primaries start.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 31, 2012 06:37 PM (tkoGU)

254 >>>http://tinyurl.com/bfhcnyk (WZ)



The Twilight Zone was never this weird.

Posted by: GnuBreed



>>>That's for sure. I saw that earlier today.

We now officially live on Htrae.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 06:37 PM (0q2P7)

255 I had a lib friend inform me that the FIRST amendment comes BEFORE the SECOND amendment THEREFORE it takes precedence. Followed by a 'd'uh'.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:29 PM (RuUvx)


I hope you pointed out that there are no other rights without the 2nd.

Posted by: Darth Randall at December 31, 2012 06:37 PM (mV8sg)

256 Time to go out and eat too much. Will be home drinking to excess later. Happy new year, wingnut morons.

Posted by: Real Joe at December 31, 2012 06:37 PM (PD2ad)

257 Re: FC via Politico
"The main holdup right now: Automatic spending cuts poised to kick in during the year, which the two parties have vowed to reverse but have failed to broker an agreement over how to do just that."

Man, wouldn't it be nice if one party, or even one lawmaker actually supported across-the-board spending cuts? These cuts were carefully crafted in bipartisan negotiations with input from lawmakers and policy wonks on both sides. Belt-tightening is painful, but it has to happen: cut it all. Cut it now. Then cut it again. We need to cut the throat of every sacred cow from Planned Parenthood to foreign aid to Israel to energy subsidies to Big Bird to the DoD. Belt-tightening is painful, but it has to happen: cut it all. Cut it now. Then cut it more.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:37 PM (Hz1zc)

258 250 For the record, I don't mean to bash undergrad English majors as a whole.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:34 PM (Y5I9o)

___________

Yeah, sure. Hurter. And on this sacred night of drinking, too.

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:38 PM (2ArJQ)

259 I personally have no problem in throwing out the constitution as long as I get to make all the rules and all the laws. Ok Louis? I mean this gets rid of that darn constitution.Oh, surely you didn't think we would let you decide? You did? Oh, well then, you're a dumbass.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 31, 2012 06:35 PM (69Mdf)


---------------------------------------------


No Constitution means anarchy. Anarchy means I get to do what I want to whom I want. I've already got a list.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (4ME3G)

260 awww screw it, i'm off to make another Dom Perignon Jim Beam slushie, snort up some blow,then ring up my favorite prostitute.

Posted by: Beltway Insider at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (m6OUa)

261
Seidman said: This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation. [p]Seidman is a sloppy thinker. He calls "equal protection of the laws" a "constitutional command". I'm fairly certain he means equal protection under the law. Does he actually support that? Doubtful, given this quote in the previous paragraph, "Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper." So which is it? There is no equal protection under the law if you're allowed to selectively ignore the law. See too that he claims we should follow these "commands" "out of respect, not obligation." So even when he argues for retaining parts of the Constitution, he wants the law to have no force behind it. Or so his muddled thinking leads me to reach that conclusion.[/p][p]I can only imagine, and laugh at my mental image of Seidman shouting at me, "You're disrespecting my non-binding Constituion." Then shuffling off to write an Op-Ed about it.[/p]

Posted by: bonhomme at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (8ifMA)

262 The Constitution addresses this very thing. First, enumerated powers. Second, the 10th Amendment.



Read it. It's all in there.

The 10th Ammendment has been neutered by 80 years of practice, as well as enumerated powers (e.g. EPA, NLRB regulatory power). While all of the constitutional safeguards were supposed to be in place, our country's inertia is moving us toward a Leviathon that will be unresponsive and irresponsible.

Posted by: Beorn at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (dGF4J)

263 random thought -

I was watching a documentary re: London just before the Blitz. One of the old guys talking spoke about a parlor game the social set had taken up called "Nazi - Yes or No" or some such.

The point of the game was to pick a person and decide whether, if the Nazis landed, would they resist or immediately begin supporting the Germans.

I get the same kind of feeling wrt this whole 2nd Amendment thing.

If "They" come for the guns, which of your friends would resist? Which would rat you out to Colonel Hans Landa while your kids were hiding under the floorboards of your house?
_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (RuUvx)

264 well Jordan conceded PP and...PBS there. how centrist.

unfortunately as Obama will inform you it's all necessary stimuli

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (60GaT)

265 "awww screw it, i'm off to make another Dom Perignon Jim Beam slushie, snort up some blow,then ring up my favorite prostitute."

Are you Les Miles? That's his exact pre-game ritual.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (Hz1zc)

266 What's really sad is that almost half the country probably agrees with him.
Posted by: Soona


Doubtful they know enough to agree with him.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (KDq5l)

267 Don't forget that liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call them, have an infinite sense of self-regard. Therefore any idea they have is brilliant, their arguments are the only ones, and any behavior they care to indulge in is just fine, because they're good people, and good people can't do bad things.

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (8sCoq)

268
# 251 "What's really sad is that almost half the country probably agrees with him."

Doubtful. Even that dolt Spoork on the KOS site got flack for trying to suggest banning guns outright. Some of the left are fine with doing away with rights, as long as its others rights. As soon as it comes to theirs, they scream like a spoild child. But some are a little more principled.

Posted by: Thorisin at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (jxir/)

269 @258:"Yeah, sure. Hurter. And on this sacred night of drinking, too.
Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:38 PM (2ArJQ)
--
No, seriously I don't.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (Y5I9o)

270 >awww screw it, i'm off to make another Dom Perignon Jim Beam slushie,


recipe STAT

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:41 PM (8sCoq)

271 I had a lib friend inform me that the FIRST amendment comes BEFORE the SECOND amendment THEREFORE it takes precedence. Followed by a 'd'uh'.
Posted by: BumperStickerist

Ask him how he plans to keep it and enforce it without the 2nd.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 31, 2012 06:41 PM (d0Dmj)

272 Posted by: Jordan

STFU, dunce. You voted for the Turd-in-Chief, not us.

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 31, 2012 06:42 PM (VwWhR)

273 I wish these pizza commercials would stop. I'm lazy, I'm hungry, I have cash and a cellphone.

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:42 PM (8sCoq)

274 The Constitution was written by genuises: Madison, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, men of accomplishment, who had successfully led an armed rebellion and established a new nation, who were deeply educated in the history and culture of the West and profoundly experienced in the realities of politics.

And this clown scribbling in the "Times"? Not so much.

Christ, I pity his students.

Posted by: Brown Line at December 31, 2012 06:42 PM (6d08e)

275 265 "awww screw it, i'm off to make another Dom Perignon Jim Beam slushie, snort up some blow,then ring up my favorite prostitute." Are you Les Miles? That's his exact pre-game ritual.
Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:40 PM (Hz1zc)
I admit nothing, nothing!

Posted by: Beltway Insider at December 31, 2012 06:42 PM (m6OUa)

276 weird thing - my guess is about 5/8ths of the half that agree with Obama about guns either own guns, and have no intention of giving them up 'just because' or have close loved ones who have guns and no intention of giving them up, 'just because'
_

for the record - I don't have a gun, but would print one out the minute the gubmint bans them.

Maybe two.
_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:43 PM (RuUvx)

277 The disappointing part is .....

The people so bent on changing the country never want to change it's name. If you get rid of the Constitution then it isn't the United States of America. They should change the name out of respect for those that died in the name of the founding documents.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:43 PM (uis79)

278 The 10th Ammendment has been neutered by 80 years of practice

The Commerce Clause trumps all of that crap.

Posted by: some liberal at December 31, 2012 06:44 PM (mjR67)

279
I'd like to change the rules/constitution so that it read:
All leftwing dictator-loving statists shall pay 90% of their income to the IRS.

Posted by: Fresh at December 31, 2012 06:44 PM (O7ksG)

280 >>>We need to cut the throat of every sacred cow from

Notice troll boy didn't name one damn entitlement?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 06:45 PM (0q2P7)

281 The 10th Ammendment has been neutered by 80 years of practice, as well as enumerated powers (e.g. EPA, NLRB regulatory power). While all of the constitutional safeguards were supposed to be in place, our country's inertia is moving us toward a Leviathon that will be unresponsive and irresponsible.
Posted by: Beorn at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (dGF4J)


------------------------------------------------


It's why I'm a big believer in local and state political envolvement. The only entities that are going to turn things around in this country is the states.

That's why I also say that if you live in an unapologetic blue state, move.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:46 PM (4ME3G)

282 "weird thing - my guess is about 5/8ths of the half that agree with Obama about guns either own guns, and have no intention of giving them up 'just because' or have close loved ones who have guns and no intention of giving them up, 'just because' "

I voted for Obama. I don't support gun control of any kind and would not give up my weapons. Presumably, those of you who voted for Romney feel the same about his efforts at gun control, including the assault weapons ban.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:46 PM (Hz1zc)

283 @223
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 31, 2012 06:26 PM (Y5I9o)

*****

Humanists on the Constitution:

I think that the constitution as written will keep me from imposing my utopia on others, therefore, I am going to pretend that it doesn't say what it plainly says.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 31, 2012 06:46 PM (1OZSU)

284 We've got our jammies on in the D'oh house. Drinking ourselves into numbness as we approach Teh Cliff.

Wheeeeeeee!

Poor Barry told us today he has to spend NY Eve in the WH with his servants and chef. Hope he has someone to "spoon" with, if you get my drift.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:47 PM (UOM48)

285 Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (RuUvx)

Sigh. My neighbors across the street I suspect would be the first to turn.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 31, 2012 06:47 PM (69Mdf)

286 The radicals of the 60s did one thing right. They grabbed control of the schools and the Universities and we are paying the price for that today.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:47 PM (jE38p)

287 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Thanks, sugar.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:48 PM (UOM48)

288 282

bitter clingers aren't allowed in the great Obama coalition didn't you get the memo

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:48 PM (60GaT)

289 @ChadPergram House adjourns until noon et, January 1, 2013. No specifics on tomorrows legislative program. #fiscalcliff

@robertcostaNRO Sources say Biden will huddle w/ (and whip) Senate Dems tonight about deal. Then Reid will likely bring to vote. Caution tho: things fluid

Posted by: 80sBaby at December 31, 2012 06:48 PM (YjDyJ)

290 These guys always remind me of that old Devo lyric.

"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want."

Posted by: Eisenhorn at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (OjQYm)

291 >I voted for Obama.


why are you here

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (8sCoq)

292 I was wondering how Obama would get around that pesky 22nd amendment. I just couldn't imagine a scenario where he could get it overturned.

Never in my wildest fever dreams could I have imagined him suggesting that we abandon the constitution in its entirety.

..and yes, this is the NYT (et al), but Obama's peeps suggested it.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (lvQIn)

293 217
Are Congressional Republicans Already Caving In on Gun Control?

http://is.gd/0Lf3z5

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:24 PM (8sCoq)

________________
Was there any doubt they'd cave on taxes?
Is there any doubt they'll cave on guns?
What haven't Republicans caved on in the past decade?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (HDgX3)

294 "Words don't have meanings" ~shorter version.

Posted by: longerthoughts at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (CVVLU)

295 Well they think they have their Caesar and it's time to cross the Rubicon. He shall be their Cataline.

Posted by: James at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (12J6Y)

296 Notice troll boy didn't name one damn entitlement?


Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 06:45 PM (0q2P7)


In his defense he mentioned Planned Parenthood and PBS (personified by Big Bird), two lib sacred cows. True, they aren't entitlements per se but they're part of the prog holy grail.

Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (H17io)

297 Shorter version Barry's presser today:

"I won. Suck it. Woo hoo."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (UOM48)

298 270 >awww screw it, i'm off to make another Dom Perignon Jim Beam slushie,recipe STAT
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:41 PM (8sCoq)

one bottle Dom/ one fifth Beam pour both into large bowl set inside your liquid nitrogen chamber (doesn't everyone have one?) until "slushie" pour into Mason jars or just drink it right from the bowl.
enjoy

Posted by: Beltway Insider at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (m6OUa)

299 so what's a good single barrel pump shotgun I should look at?

how many rounds can I fire before I reload?


Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (8sCoq)

300 292
I was wondering how Obama would get around that pesky 22nd amendment. I
just couldn't imagine a scenario where he could get it overturned.



Never in my wildest fever dreams could I have imagined him suggesting that we abandon the constitution in its entirety.



..and yes, this is the NYT (et al), but Obama's peeps suggested it.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at December 31, 2012 06:49 PM (lvQIn)

_______________________
And that whole election thingy every 4 years also mentioned in the constitution....

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (HDgX3)

301 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: I eat paste.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (UOM48)

302 i wouldn't call pushing the threshold of tax increases up to $400/450K under incredibly unfavorable circumstances "caving" but maybe i'm generous

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (60GaT)

303 >until "slushie" pour into Mason jars or just drink it right from the bowl.

enjoy


can i just dunk my head in and slurp? like a horse trough?

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (8sCoq)

304 Translation: I eat paste.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (UOM4


Hey the way this country is going, we all may be eating paste soon

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (jE38p)

305 they're simply stating widely held belief among the core/base of the democrat party.

Posted by: ilovebacon at December 31, 2012 06:52 PM (YTM4T)

306 In his defense he mentioned Planned Parenthood and
PBS (personified by Big Bird), two lib sacred cows. True, they aren't
entitlements per se but they're part of the prog holy grail.


Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (H17io)

____________
Ask 100 libs would you rather abolish Social Security / Medicare OR Planed Parenthood, I'd wage $10K the majority says keep PP and get rid of SS/Medicare.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:52 PM (HDgX3)

307 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I sit when I pee."

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:52 PM (uis79)

308 303 >until "slushie" pour into Mason jars or just drink it right from the bowl. enjoycan i just dunk my head in and slurp? like a horse trough?
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (8sCoq)

that's what i do...

Posted by: Beltway Insider at December 31, 2012 06:53 PM (m6OUa)

309 302
i wouldn't call pushing the threshold of tax increases up to $400/450K
under incredibly unfavorable circumstances "caving" but maybe i'm
generous


Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (60GaT)
_________It's not the the amount. It's the fact they caved into the idea that higher tax on the rich without a dime of spending cuts somehow fixes things. I'd be pissed if the amount were $1B+.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:53 PM (HDgX3)

310 if abortion is so cool, PP should have no trouble raising 100% of their budget from pvt sources and abortion enthusiasts

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:53 PM (8sCoq)

311 "Notice troll boy didn't name one damn entitlement?"

Cut those too. All of them. Now. This isn't ideological to me, it's math. Cut every single area of spending until the yearly deficit is eliminated. However, if we're going to ask seniors to do more with less, we damned well better ask our government to do the same thing. Cut it all. Cut it now. Then do it again.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 06:53 PM (Hz1zc)

312 How many times have you heard or read someone admiring fascism, communism, or dictatorships in general because they "get things done?"

Posted by: fb at December 31, 2012 06:53 PM (JVEmw)

313 Hope he has someone to "spoon" with, if you get my drift.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:47 PM (UOM4


I am NOT available!

Posted by: Reggie at December 31, 2012 06:54 PM (2ArJQ)

314 Jordan is a moron liberal. But at least he seems to genuinely care for his country. Gotta give him props for that...as misguided as he is.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 06:54 PM (HDgX3)

315 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I got Anal Beads for Christmas."

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:54 PM (uis79)

316 295 Well they think they have their Caesar and it's time to cross the Rubicon. He shall be their Cataline.
Posted by: James at December 31, 2012 06:50 PM (12J6Y)


And I shall remember my salad days.

Posted by: Julius at December 31, 2012 06:55 PM (2ArJQ)

317 Yer all a buncha hateful, bitter blowhards that wouldn't move the same direction if ye were caught in a goddamned flood.

But I loves ya all anyway. Have a happy new year.

Posted by: MrShad at December 31, 2012 06:55 PM (Xqfwb)

318
And the author of the op-ed piece is a professor of Constitutional law.

I don't where to start.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (4u2LN)

319 Hey get a load of this way out rumor from Debka.

But around Tehran and the Gulf Emirates, DEBKAfile was already picking up insistent rumors claiming that Clinton was seriously injured while on a secret mission in the region in the first week of December. Some claimed that in the same incident, Americans in her party - advisers and security personnel - were either injured or killed. Those rumors did not say what her secret mission was. However, the episode described occurred shortly after Dec. 1, when, as DEBKAfile reported at the time, Obama administration officials and senior representatives of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei launched secret talks on Irans nuclear program.
Although our sources have not identified the negotiators on either side of the table, one of the theories floating around certain capitals claimed that Hillary Clinton three weeks ago was on her way to a secret meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in regard to those negotiations. The plane carrying her from Bahrain logged its destination as Baghdad, but is described as having changed direction in midair and headed for Ahvaz, capital of the south Iranian province of Khuzestan. There, it was said, the Iranian president was awaiting her arrival. But then the plane ran into technical trouble and made an emergency landing and that was when she was injured, according to this theory.
The unexplained death of Commander Job Price, 42, SEALs commander in Afghanistan is tied by some of the speculation to that incident. At the time, the Pentagon reported that his sudden death on Dec. 22, in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, was under investigation. It is now suggested that Commander Price was head of the security detail attached to Clinton for her Iran mission and he was one of the casualties of the accident.
In the nature of things, the impact these kinds of rumors have lingers even when they are officially denied especially given Secretary Clinton's unusually long absence from the public eye. The medical report promised Wednesday after she is monitored at the hospital for 48 hours to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion, is tensely awaited. After that, said the hospital announcement, her doctors will determine if any further action is required.
Clinton, known as the most traveled Secretary of State in US diplomatic history, has been in the international spotlight since 1992 when her husband Bill Clinton was elected president and she became first lady. She then served in the US Senate and later ran for the presidency against Barack Obama.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (jE38p)

320 Yeah, this fucking turd is going to pretend he's a fiscal hawk, but still voted for Obama.

Fuck you, Jordan. You're too stupid to live.

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (VwWhR)

321
I voted for Obama.
Posted by: Jordan




Head over to HotAir. They'll probably make you a co-blogger.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (kdS6q)

322 Vladimir Putin recently spent over 4 hours in an extended press conference getting grilled by media who were asking some pretty uncomfortable questions.

How long has Obama ever been in front of a media that was asking difficult questions?

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (hc3eM)

323 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."



Translation: "I hate the United States of America."

Posted by: JeanQueenie at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (Gmp2Z)

324 Unrelated (dear God, I hope so), but since the AR market appears to be in a panic and going out of my price range, I'm looking into alternatives. Do any of you morons have opinions on:

a.) .22LR versions of certain semiauto rifles; or

b.) retool a Vietnam-era Type 59 (Chicom SKS clone) with a modern stock, magazines, scope, etc.

Thoughts? I live in a relatively gun-friendly state, so no California-style silliness.

Posted by: Professor Marius von Totenkopf (formerly Hoss Fuentes) at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (aozUR)

325 well you're right on principle. i guess i just feel like there'll be a point in the future, without the fiscal-cliff time constraints/faux-drama, where they'll be able to call Obama's bluff on that in the future (and should emphasize now that this isn't an Ultimate Fix to Everything or whatnot as McConnell has)

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (60GaT)

326 (Moo Moo)

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 06:57 PM (60GaT)

327 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I'm a Racist"

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 06:57 PM (uis79)

328 Hey the way this country is going, we all may be eating paste soon
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 06:51 PM (jE38p)



Nevergiveup uses paste on his crowns.

Posted by: Cricket at December 31, 2012 06:58 PM (2ArJQ)

329 They're petty open about their desires now aren't they?

----

Yep, we're seeing this kind of sentiment bandied about out in the open on a regular basis. They know the time to strike is now.....they have seen the jelly-brained masses fall for their shit, fall for their Marxist Messiah. And do so willingly. The suitably brainwashed are ready to give up their evil liberties.

Posted by: Lady in Black at December 31, 2012 06:58 PM (ATdet)

330 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Me: *pats pointy head* "Bless your heart."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 06:58 PM (UOM48)

331 But at least he seems to genuinely care for his country.

He probably shouldn't have voted for the asshole who spent the last four years demonstrating exactly how he was going to destroy it, then.

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 31, 2012 06:59 PM (VwWhR)

332 I caved- ordered a pan pizza with pepperoni and sausage

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 06:59 PM (8sCoq)

333 @philipaklein Sr. GOP aide: "doc fix" will be paid for, UI will not. Sequester will be offset for 2 months but no deal on offsets yet http://t.co/fSYtiPWk

@JohnJHarwood Aide: Senate Ds balk at estate-tax piece of Biden-McConnell deal. rate wd rise to 40% from 35%, but Rs want indexed rise in $5-M exemption

Posted by: 80sBaby at December 31, 2012 06:59 PM (YjDyJ)

334 >
But at least he seems to genuinely care for his country.

He
probably shouldn't have voted for the asshole who spent the last four
years demonstrating exactly how he was going to destroy it, then.



Booyah outta the park nothin' but net

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 07:00 PM (8sCoq)

335

such utter contempt for the document that protects his right of free speech and free press... the very document that protects his right to speak against the very document of his own rights. The document that other countries don't have. Protects his rights to speak against the powerful... because without the document he has such contempt for.... he would be jailed or killed for what he said and printed.... oh.. the irony of it all....

Posted by: cathymv at December 31, 2012 07:00 PM (SzORY)

336 a.) .22LR versions of certain semiauto rifles

Remington Nylon 66 and 77. Durable, cheap, and they keep shooting even when pretty dirty.

The 66 is tube fed, the 77 has a 10 round detachable mag.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 07:00 PM (hc3eM)

337
Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I was a Crack Baby"

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 31, 2012 07:01 PM (uis79)

338
>>>>In his defense he mentioned Planned Parenthood and PBS (personified
by Big Bird), two lib sacred cows. True, they aren't entitlements per se
but they're part of the prog holy grail.

He put change on the table and stipulated we put Cnotes. This is classic Boehner-Obama style negotiating.

Let me show you a counter offer.

Jordan you get to keep big bird.
I am willing to abandon every foreign base and reduce our power projection capability to just one carrier group and MEU and devote all of defense into strategic nukes.

I get SS, MC, funded from the general fund and SS taxes repealed. And no SS/MC benefits for anyone who either has retirement income above 30K a year, or net worth over a million dollars.


Oh and Obamacare...Gone. It is a money pit. Department of education...Gone. All other forms of direct federal aid including food stamps. Gone.

I'm willing to gut the military to the extent that it makes the world unsafe. You had better be willing to gut entitlements.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 07:01 PM (0q2P7)

339 1 Word: Kerensky.


Later, all.

God bless.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 31, 2012 07:02 PM (8hrco)

340 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I live in Mom's basement."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 07:02 PM (UOM48)

341 How is this guy a professor of constitutional law? How can he ethically teach classes about a governing document that he believes should be abolished? Sounds like his position should be abolished.

Posted by: Jon in TX at December 31, 2012 07:02 PM (PKRPm)

342 Using law professor and ethical in the same sentence is your problem

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 07:03 PM (hc3eM)

343 341
How is this guy a professor of constitutional law? How can he ethically
teach classes about a governing document that he believes should be
abolished? Sounds like his position should be abolished.




*cough* Obama *cough*


Of course, Dear Leader was never actually a professor.....

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 07:04 PM (UOM48)

344 He probably shouldn't have voted for the asshole who
spent the last four years demonstrating exactly how he was going to
destroy it, then.


Posted by: Waterhouse at December 31, 2012 06:59 PM (VwWhR)

_________
I did say he is a moron, did I not? You can be patriotic and a moron.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 07:04 PM (HDgX3)

345 329 The suitably brainwashed are ready to give up their evil liberties.

The brainwashed do not know they are brainwashed.

Posted by: Jon in TX at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (PKRPm)

346 263
If "They" come for the guns, which of your friends would resist? Which would rat you out to Colonel Hans Landa while your kids were hiding under the floorboards of your house?
_
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (RuUvx)


Yes, I've been saying for a while that we need to start thinking like people who lived behind the Iron Curtain. We have to start thinking about what we say and who we say it to. At some point friends and family members will start to denounce us for our unorthodox beliefs and statements.

It sucks, but that's clearly the direction we are heading. In totalitarian societies, parents are literally afraid of their own children, because of the indoctrination they get in government schools. Orwell also touched on that in 1984.

Posted by: rickl at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (sdi6R)

347 Dammit. The pic on Drudge nearly made my weep....for what's left of my country.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (UOM48)

348
Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "Bi-curious WM into Ron Paul and feet. Seeks same for fun and possible LTR. No fatties or weirdos.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (kdS6q)

349 These people are the enemy! We will go thru them like shit thru a goose!

Posted by: Things Patton might have said at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (Oi60j)

350
Someone build a time machine and send this fucko back to me so I can wipe my ass with his stupid, left wing face.

Posted by: James Madison at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (HzhBE)

351 These people are the enemy! We will go thru them like shit thru a goose!
Posted by: Things Patton might have said at December 31, 2012 07:05 PM (Oi60j)

If only we had done that in the last election? Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 31, 2012 07:08 PM (jE38p)

352 First they came for the AR-15s. But I didn't own an AR-15 so I didn't say anything.

Then they came for the 9mm Glock. But I don't own a 9mm so I didn't say anything.

Then they came for the .22. But I don't own a .22 so I didn't say anything.

And so forth.....

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 31, 2012 07:09 PM (HDgX3)

353 "We will use their guts to grease the treads of our Tanks!"

Posted by: Walter Sobchak a.k.a General Patton at December 31, 2012 07:10 PM (uis79)

354 President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his full weight behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it, Obama said in an interview aired on NBCs Meet the Press. I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

In the wake of the Dec. 14 mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., school, the president has launched a White House task force led by Vice President Biden to present proposals in January to help stem gun violence. Obama has said that he would seek a broad approach to the problem addressing the role of violence in entertainment and measures to improve mental healthcare.

But he has also called on Congress to move quickly to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action.

I've been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support, the president said.

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 31, 2012 07:11 PM (8sCoq)

355 >>>First they came for the AR-15s. But I didn't own an AR-15 so I didn't say anything.

I know right. I hate the .223, and think the AR action ranks among the most unreliable; but it's symbolic.

If they can ban a POS .22 caliber varmint shooter they can ban anything; And will ban it all with time and effort.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 07:13 PM (0q2P7)

356 I wonder if Barry has ever held a gun of any kind? I know he scoffed at Romney during a debate that "we don't use bayonets anymore."

Funny, that. The Marines still train in the use of bayonets. We showed the libtard ATL family a K-bar at Christmas and showed them where it goes on a rifle to become a bayonet.

Idiots just rolled their eyes like, "Yeah, sure."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at December 31, 2012 07:14 PM (UOM48)

357 I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,


[squirt!]

Posted by: Richard Simmons at December 31, 2012 07:14 PM (BAS5M)

358 This , in my book, is the very definition of sedition. An officer sworn to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies could be aquitted by a jury of his peers for any act he might take in living up his oath. If I was on that jury it would at least be a hung jury.

Posted by: Minuteman at December 31, 2012 07:14 PM (tQDDG)

359 I've been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,

Was it Obama or Romney who said this? Don't forget you guys voted for a gun grabber too.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 07:15 PM (Hz1zc)

360 Hey, Jordan...

We voted for the guy who was not endorsed by CPUSA.

Posted by: JeanQueenie at December 31, 2012 07:17 PM (Gmp2Z)

361 "A world made free."

"From what?"

"Freedom."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MWhu8KMS4Y

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 07:19 PM (Tt6ky)

362 Let's just abanond that old moldy thing and go with that spiffy SOCIAL JUSTICE constitution that South Africa has?

Posted by: Ruth Bader Ginsberg at December 31, 2012 07:20 PM (Vk2pI)

363 No Constitution means anarchy. Anarchy means I get to do what I want to whom I want. I've already got a list.

Posted by: Soona at December 31, 2012 06:39 PM (4ME3G)


So... what anarchy really means

http://tinyurl.com/awj9u4r

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 31, 2012 07:22 PM (Vk2pI)

364 Democracy is fine until the Neanderthals want to get in on the act.

Posted by: The New York Times at December 31, 2012 05:38 PM (QKKT0)


Hey!

Posted by: Geico caveman at December 31, 2012 07:23 PM (Vk2pI)

365 Litmus tests...purdy purity...funny funny

Posted by: Pucker Up Buttercup at December 31, 2012 07:24 PM (I88Jc)

366

At a time when we've seen Flash Mobs show up at a target location and commit what ever larceny they were intent on doing...

At a time when crowds ofUnion goons attack peaceful people...

And a time when we have an Agitator of mob-mentality in the White House...

Then,owning a high-capacity magazine has nevermade more sense, than this time.

When libtards ask..."Why would a private citizen need a high-capacity firearm?"
This is why.
The Leftists themselves have created this dangerous time that we now live in...so this is why we need to be able to defend ourselves from the mob mentality that they love to incite for their own purposes.


Posted by: wheatie at December 31, 2012 07:26 PM (K4wCe)

367 voting for Romney was voting for a lot of things, we just figured he'd be Romney v2.0 and not engage in McCain-style thumb-in-the-GOP's-eye shenanigans. we'll never know but i'd say that was probably a fair prediction.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 07:26 PM (60GaT)

368 Voting for Romney was voting for what could be perceived as *the lesser of two evils*

How's that for a fucking litmus test?

Posted by: JeanQueenie at December 31, 2012 07:28 PM (Gmp2Z)

369 They're not liberals, they're statists. Let's label them correctly when discussing their policies and political philosophies.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 31, 2012 07:29 PM (6WVi+)

370 Oh, the one positive thing about Romney losing is that cocksucker would have asked for magazine cap limits and an AWB on day one and the House would pass it.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at December 31, 2012 07:29 PM (K1JW0)

371 Voting for Romney was voting for what could be perceived as *the lesser of two evils*

Voting for anyone is a choice for the lesser of two evils. Unless, uhhm, you're evil and then I suppose you would support the greater one.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 07:30 PM (Hz1zc)

372 370

liberalism=welfare statism, not sure i get your point

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 07:32 PM (60GaT)

373 If you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, then you must be voting for the more evil of the two.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 07:33 PM (Tt6ky)

374 Jordan: "I voted for Obama."

Translation: "I have a prolapsed rectum."

Posted by: James Madison at December 31, 2012 07:33 PM (HzhBE)

375 "Oh, the one positive thing about Romney losing is that cocksucker would have asked for magazine cap limits and an AWB on day one and the House would pass it."

Yup. I think he would have been real mushy indeed on assault weapons given his earlier statements: Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.

Look at it this way: if Romney won, the House would have caved to him. Perhaps with Obama reelected, they'll have spine enough for united opposition to new gun control laws. Silver lining?

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 07:34 PM (Hz1zc)

376 Vladimir Putin recently spent over 4 hours in an extended press conference getting grilled by media who were asking some pretty uncomfortable questions.How long has Obama ever been in front of a media that was asking difficult questions?
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (hc3eM)


------------------------------------------


Yeah, but has ole Vladamir been under the national spotlight on the Letterman show. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Preezy of the United Steezy at December 31, 2012 07:35 PM (j+0qa)

377 the assumption that House Republicans would've acted the same under Romney as they did under Bush is flawed i think

it's all pointless hypotheticals though

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 07:36 PM (60GaT)

378 This editorialists views on the evil nature of the Senate representation scheme, as well as Progressive calls for abolishing the Electoral College, would perhaps have more to recommend then as being worthy of initial consideration if a Progressive President wasn't at this very moment using control by his faction of the non-proportional-representated (thus, eeeevil) Senate to seem legitimate in his attempts to dictate legislation to the one body in the Federal Government with proportional representation--the House of Representatives.

Perhaps the editorialist should give the President a call and set him straight. I'm not holding my breath, though. Because what I think the editorialist is really calling for is a "blank check" grant of power to his side. Whom he presumes are flawless and without sin.

Unlike, say, every other group of men who ever have been, or ever will be.

Posted by: T. at December 31, 2012 07:36 PM (0K51S)

379 From the article:

"In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take
seriously the claim by the Constitutions defenders that we would be
reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from
this ancient text."

Now there's a straw man the size of Wicker Man. Coming from a purported law prof.

It's one thing to point to acts of "disobedience" as evidence that the Constitution's provisions have been flouted. It's quite another to argue that jettisoning the whole thing is qualitatively the same as those individual acts. I may cheat on my wife, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to end my marriage.

And just who is it who argues we would return to life in a state of nature (solitary, nasty, brutish and short) if we jettisoned the Constitution? Isn't the traditional argument that it offers a ***better** form of government than all others?

If she sat through crap like this, it's no wonder Georgetown law grad Sandra "Legs in the Air" Fluke is so fluked up.

(face it: the guy is just flogging his soon-to-be released book. Looks like he succeeded.)

Posted by: Jim Sonweed at December 31, 2012 07:37 PM (HVtRc)

380 a.) .22LR versions of certain semiauto rifles;


Why? In case we go to war against squirrels and small varmint?

Posted by: entropy at December 31, 2012 07:41 PM (YUttk)

381 There's one thing that's certain if Romney had won, we'd be rid of ObamaCare. I'd trade high-capacity magazines for that. Any sane person would.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 07:45 PM (Tt6ky)

382 >>>>>>>liberalism=welfare statism, not sure i get your point

From Wiki:

This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism by country. For other uses, see Liberal (disambiguation).


Not to be confused with American Liberalism
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding
of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

Pretty much the antithesis of what gets called a liberal in the US. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Barack Obama is a statist.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 31, 2012 07:46 PM (6WVi+)

383 "Quiet Discontent Among Senate Democrats"- http://bit.ly/RqO605

Posted by: 80sBaby at December 31, 2012 07:53 PM (YjDyJ)

384 "There's one thing that's certain if Romney had won, we'd be rid of ObamaCare."

It's hard for me to imagine Harry Reid would allow that. A Romney victory would have presented the possibility of repeal, but it's far from certain.

Posted by: Jordan at December 31, 2012 07:54 PM (Hz1zc)

385 the sole hope here is this:

when Obama states something, anything, as a priority, it Just.Doesn't.Effing.Happen.

Op Cit. Jobs, The Economy, Transparency.
_

In other words, if I could hand pick someone to "come for my guns" I would pick Joe Biden.

Fortunately, so would Obama.

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2012 07:54 PM (RuUvx)

386 Go for it. We'll take out the Bill of Rights in numerical order. First goes the First Amendment.
For now on, all NYT copy must be approved by the Ministry of Truth before publication. That's regardless of the president at the time.

Posted by: Max Entropy at December 31, 2012 07:55 PM (NwTXA)

387 >>>Any sane person would.

???

I'm not sure that choosing (if such a choice actually existed, it didn't, Romney wouldn't have been able to rid of us of OCare with Reid in charge of the Senate) High Capacity Mags over getting rid of Ocare makes someone insane as you have stipulated.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 31, 2012 07:56 PM (0q2P7)

388 The mask is slipping and what it reveals is ugly beyond sin.

Posted by: WVinMN at December 31, 2012 08:02 PM (mab4s)

389 There will much settling of scores in the burning time.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at December 31, 2012 08:07 PM (QupBk)

390 Fucking great....I get to pay these cocksuckers another $50k just
because some crooked motherfucker's BIL is in the construction business
and wants to charge double on a fucking armadillo fucking bridge in
fucking Minnesota. If anyone reading this are cocksucking cong. staff
people or even federal employees you can go fuck yourselves with a hot
horse shoe. The rule of unintended consequences is gonna bite you ass
munching limp dicks big time. Let It Burn

Posted by: owlpellets at December 31, 2012 08:08 PM (dmEoV)

391

a.) .22LR versions of certain semiauto rifles; or

Posted by: Professor Marius von Totenkopf (formerly Hoss Fuentes) at December 31, 2012 06:56 PM (aozUR)


Hoss, would this be your first one? If so the Ruger 10/22 is pretty universal, and easy-to-use.

Posted by: Steck at December 31, 2012 08:09 PM (RL7U1)

392 Maybe not legislatively, but Romney would have waivered compliance, making it a moot point.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 08:10 PM (Tt6ky)

393 I love my 10/22 so much I really want a mini 30 too. Hard to find though.

Posted by: owlpellets at December 31, 2012 08:11 PM (dmEoV)

394 It's hard for me to imagine Harry Reid would allow that.

Legislative ALLOCATES.
Executive SPENDS.

Congress has no power to force executive to spend since it has no enforcement apparatus under its control, save impeachment.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 31, 2012 08:46 PM (hc3eM)

395 You know what chaps my ass? The Magna Carta.

Posted by: King John at December 31, 2012 08:53 PM (evE7u)

396 "Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University,..."

Professional dumbass might be a better term...

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 31, 2012 08:58 PM (A3ftE)

397 Nice proposal, dude.


Wait, your fucking serious?

Posted by: Jonathan Swift at December 31, 2012 09:00 PM (SzAZ7)

398 All we are saayying is Give Fascism a Chance............

Posted by: puddleglum at December 31, 2012 09:06 PM (39NWD)

399 383

you're talking about basic liberal political ideas as opposed to old monarchies/feudal societies. for a long while now liberalism's obviously developed (for good or ill) into a general egalitarianism that necessitates substantial state intervention.

talking about that far back is as pointless as saying you're not a conservative cuz you're not a fan of George III.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 09:06 PM (8HhF2)

400 the lesson is that the basic liberalism of long past inevitably develops into a much more broad-based claim of rights/equality unless the population accepts certain traditions/practices particular to the nation that prevent that.

if all you have is abstract rights/liberty/equality it's difficult to make a meaningful conservative case against the latest liberal push.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 09:09 PM (8HhF2)

401 Certain soft minds have a natural attraction to Strong Men on White Horses.
-
These guys aren't those guys. This is urban, not rural; intellectual, not practical and manual.

The NY Times bias is in favor of rule by the Steering Committee of the Inner Party, after consultation with a fanatically leftist and intolerant academic and bloviating class. Anyone who could ride a horse would wind up like the kulaks.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 31, 2012 09:15 PM (sQ9qN)

402 9 If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
-
And a cultural Marxist professor justifying it.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 31, 2012 09:17 PM (sQ9qN)

403 32 Theydo realize that without the Constitution, there will be no freedom of the press, right?
-
The think there will be freedom for their press, a credentialed mass media.

Bloggers and people that talk about things that are supposed to be covered over with silence or shouted down with progressive and "anti-racist" slogans - not so much.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 31, 2012 09:24 PM (sQ9qN)

404 Though the professor certainly makes a good point about the Court's lack of Constitutional justification for protecting homosexuality. He probably wanted to admit to the Court's abortion jurisprudence also being unconstitutional, but thought that would be admitting too much.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 09:25 PM (Tt6ky)

405
I lurk here and already have posted this answer:
Professor Seidman; You may be a congressional scholar of 40 years, but you are woefully ignorant of the Constitution. Perhaps had you been able to have taken an oath to protect and defend it (38 years and counting, I have not been released form this Oath), you might have some idea what it means. And, no, I don't need it interpreted for me, being a reasonably capable citizen with a decent education... B.S. Biology; M.S. Aeronautical Science, and the equivalent of another M.S. in Applied Aeronautics. To say nothing of having had to understand the Law(s) of Armed Conflict, the UCMJ, Clausewitz, Douhet, Guevara, Mao, Rommel, Mitchell, Sun Tzu, Musashi, and Niccol Machiavelli in order to DO my job of protecting you in your Ivory Tower of Academia.Fuck You and your give up on the Constitution, you Fuck /rant off
McGyver, Out

Posted by: McGyver at December 31, 2012 09:25 PM (QFE8r)

406 You have the history of liberalism messed up. What happened is that socialists stole the language of political and legal equality to argue for socioeconomic equality. That's how liberalism changed. Socialists stole the language.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 09:27 PM (Tt6ky)

407 Right from the onset, the guy is wrong...
" But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

No, the problem is with those who wish to abrogate constitutional protections and provisions at will, like Herr Seidman.

Posted by: jim at December 31, 2012 09:30 PM (VwhRo)

408 It's probably been mentioned but the writer of the piece is a Georgetown University Professor of CONSTITUTIONAL law.

Posted by: steevy at December 31, 2012 09:35 PM (9XBK2)

409 using the state to provide certain welfare programs, progressively tax in order to subsidize lower-class individuals, etc. etc. isn't inherently socialist. there's certainly points of commonality between liberalism and socialism in the past but of course it's possible for liberals to accept the above without calling for state ownership of everything.

liberalism starts out by saying, people have certain rights, and then when they decided that laissez-faire prevents people from exercising these rights in a meaningful way they shifted toward embracing an active state role in promoting higher standards of living, while stopping short of calls for socialist revolution.

it seems very different from classical liberalism but that gets back to my point about if completely abstract rights/liberty/equality are held above everything, it seems natural that basic liberalism would morph into something else.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 09:37 PM (8HhF2)

410 What a cunt fart of an argument.

Posted by: Corona at December 31, 2012 09:38 PM (fh2Y7)

411 Welfare isn't inherently socialist (depending on how you define "socialist"), but that doesn't make it a good idea. Liberalism starts out by saying that people have rights, sure. But then statists (probably a better word for the point I was trying to make) stole the language of liberalism to argue that some people needed to have their rights subsdized, or otherwise given greater protection by the state. A socialist would argue that this makes society better, but it's really just statism by another name. Regardless, I don't want to get into a semantic argument; I think my point is clear.

Classical liberalism = individual rights.
Neoliberalism = government gives certain people more rights (at the expense of others [i.e. those who can afford it {that is, the most productive members of society are forced to subsidize the least productive <in other words, socialism>}]).

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2012 09:58 PM (Tt6ky)

412 i don't think we have much of a disagreement on the differences between the two, it's just that i think contemporary liberalism naturally arose out of older liberalism (initially the free market with democracywas the solution to tyranny, now they want the state to intervene against what they see as market excesses) and i define socialism (fascism too for that matter)in really specific terms, i.e. direct state ownership of industry. i don't get broken up about both sides slinging fascist/socialist accusations at each other or anything, it's more just when it's a real discussion as opposed to partisan fighting i think defining terms expansively can muddy the argument.

Posted by: JDP at December 31, 2012 10:37 PM (8HhF2)

413 There are a lot of people out there looking for a "savior" and want to create a "heaven on earth." These are the types of people that need to be part of something and are not independent in mind and thought. Inside, they are full of fear and cowardice. They are the ones that allow the dictator or tyrant to rise to power.

Posted by: Mistress Overdone at January 01, 2013 01:27 AM (2/oBD)

414 Big fan of tranny is right.


Oh. Tyranny.



Well, that too.

Posted by: Not Ready to Unsock at January 01, 2013 02:52 AM (iYXxW)

415 There is a book I read called The Concise History of the Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes. I recommend all Morons read it. It is an eerily similar playbook to what Obama et al are doing to Lady Liberty. But I digress. One of the interesting points of the book illuminated the fact that academics such as this turd were some of the very first to be purged by the new regime they so rabidly defended and helped usher in. I have no doubt if things go that sideways, this asshole who finds all things despicable about our Constitution will find himself on the wrong side of a barrel.

Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Balls Und Sheft at January 01, 2013 03:37 AM (0SmH0)

416 Perhaps the New York Times would prefer something more like the "Stalin Constitution" of 1936.

Posted by: deepred at January 01, 2013 10:58 AM (YmACv)

417 "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you,
where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is
planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And
if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" -Sir Thomas More, A Man for all Seasons

Posted by: Caninepundit at January 01, 2013 11:35 AM (PlKIC)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0712 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0226 seconds, 426 records returned.
Page size 209 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat