Great Podcast with Glenn Reynolds

A whole lot of sense here. Quoted here are his thoughts on liberals deciding to selectively ignore the Constitution -- which makes him wonder if he therefore has any obligation to obey it.

REYNOLDS: Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.

So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.

ROBERTS: But his argument is that we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document.

REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.

ROBERTS: Well, he would say – well, I won’t speak for him, but some would say that, well, there’s a social contract, we’ve all agreed to kind of play by these rules…

REYNOLDS: Oh really?!

ROBERTS: …of electing officials, and…

REYNOLDS: Well, the rules I agreed to electing these officials are the Constitution. I thought we were going to ignore that. That’s my social contract.

He talks about government being too big for democracy at around 4:30-- quoting Jerry Pournelle's thoughts. Capture of the Government is now too important a prize:

POURNELLE: We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It’s worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine — and it will probably never be true again.

Reynolds carries this thought:

That captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. So it was after the 2004 election when liberals talked revolution, and so again after 2012, when secession petitions flooded the White House.

There are two possible ways to address this problem. One is to elect people that everyone trusts. The problem with that is that there aren't any politicians that everyone trusts -- and, alas, if there were, the odds are good that such trust would turn out to be misplaced.

The other option is to place less power within the political sphere.


His column discussing this is here here.

Posted by: Ace at 06:01 PM



Comments

1 Remember Democrats like a dog eat dog world. Some even like a Prezzie eat dog world.

Posted by: dogfish at February 25, 2013 06:04 PM (N2yhW)

2 Don't say REVOLUTION to Tepid Wind.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 25, 2013 06:05 PM (48jWE)

3 Did he use the word Revolution?

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:07 PM (0PiQ4)

4 Vive la constitución! Vive la Jefferson! Vive la Tenche Coxe!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:07 PM (bxiXv)

5 It's not revolution it's fundamental transformation. That's much easier to sell, obviously.

Posted by: Weirdflunky at February 25, 2013 06:07 PM (tlhtD)

6 love it...

Posted by: phoenixgirl spring training is here!!!!! at February 25, 2013 06:08 PM (GVxQo)

7
Reynolds must read the comments here at the HQ...
What he's saying has been said, repeatedly, in the threads here.

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:08 PM (eyJSG)

8 All right, so let's agree it doesn't make sense to do what they say anymore.

Now what?

Posted by: Kensington at February 25, 2013 06:08 PM (/AHDz)

9 The Constitution was created precisely to prevent a power-hungry elite from exercising unlimited state (i.e. Government) power arbitrarily.



So of course, (lower-echelon AND upper-echelon) Leftists just ignore it. Brilliant!

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (kYKEk)

10 8 Take a nap?

Posted by: Weirdflunky at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (tlhtD)

11 Government employees should act as though their pensions depend on the Constitution being observed.

Posted by: No Feet Johnson at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (KHo8t)

12 I mean, I like teh Instapundit, and lord knows his wife is hot, but he seems to exist in a bit of a bubble himself.

Posted by: Kensington at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (/AHDz)

13 However Reynolds reached the conclusion I'm ok with. Welcome to the party Reynolds.

Posted by: dogfish at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (N2yhW)

14 It is an agreement between the Government and the people. It cannot be unilaterally modified or abrogated.

Violations are grounds for divorce.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 25, 2013 06:09 PM (qyv02)

15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

16 ˇSí, Soros! ˇHe dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti!

(Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.)

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)

17 He's correct... The Constitution is a contract between the Feds, the States, and WE the People.... it puts Limitations on the Federal Government, while giving it Powers and Responsibilities.

"IF" one side ignores the plainly stated terms of a contract, is that contract any longer binding?

It plainly States CONGRESS shall declare War... It clearly States that all Bills having to do with Revenue shall start in the House... it clearly states that the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed... it clearly states we have a Freedom of Association (yet we MUST do business with everyone, no matter what, or be sued).... it clearly states 'equal application' of the law, yet the Feds decide which laws they will, or will not, enforce, and on whom....

I can go on and on....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (lZBBB)

18 We have the guns, we make the rules. You follow the rules.

Posted by: The New Social Contract at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (WI2es)

19 That's going to turn into a si say sy routine if I don't stop now.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (bxiXv)

20 The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and I don't think that Obama was elected by a fair election when a city less then 50 miles from me has areas that voted 100% for one party. So I don't have to be bound by that document. Is that how it works?

Posted by: illegally posting anonymously on the internet at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (feFL6)

21 "...how
did we get stuck with him for another term?"

===============

I'm still reeling over this. If reality wasn't enough to take get that SOB thrown out of office, then are we effectively looking at the end of one-term presidencies, except maybe for Republicans?

Posted by: Kensington at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (/AHDz)

22 There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time —

THIS is something I have been thinking about lately.

Posted by: real joe at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (PD2ad)

23 Bingo. I've been telling people I know on the Left for years that they better be damn careful about the living, breathing shit. Once it's apparent that one side has decided to abandon the rule book? Game on, bitches.

The thing that separates the United States from tyranny is supposed to be the Constitution. If that is to be ignored, then we are under tyranny with all the implications that flow from that.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (Gk3SS)

24 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?

---

As Drew says, the only poll that matters is on election day. People say the government should stop spending money too, yet nothing ever gets cut.

Its time for a few states to start calling for a convention. You don't have to actually get one called, you just need to make it look possible. I really liked Randy Barnett's proposal for a covention.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (gmeXX)

25 16 ˇSí, Soros! ˇHe dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)



Good grief. Enough already with the French.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (GEICT)

26 ...how did we get stuck with him for another term?

Posted by: L, elle


I so wish someone could answer this to my satisfaction. I keep coming back to the sad position that most really prefer social slavery.

Posted by: dogfish at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (N2yhW)

27 "17 He's correct... The Constitution is a contract between the Feds, the States, and WE the People.... it puts Limitations on the Federal Government, while giving it Powers and Responsibilities.

"IF" one side ignores the plainly stated terms of a contract, is that contract any longer binding?

It plainly States CONGRESS shall declare War... It clearly States that all Bills having to do with Revenue shall start in the House... it clearly states that the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed... it clearly states we have a Freedom of Association (yet we MUST do business with everyone, no matter what, or be sued).... it clearly states 'equal application' of the law, yet the Feds decide which laws they will, or will not, enforce, and on whom....

I can go on and on....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (lZBBB) "

Contracts are a Capitalist invention. Capitalism is evil. Don't you know anything?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:13 PM (kYKEk)

28 "...how did we get stuck with him for another term?"

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

Because we allowed the media to detach Obama from the workings of the government, and our candidate was unable, or unwilling to force the issue.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2013 06:13 PM (GsoHv)

29 "Good grief. Enough already with the French."
===============

Exactly!

Posted by: Henry V at February 25, 2013 06:13 PM (/AHDz)

30 Reynolds: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.

And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to replace this system with?

Obama is a classical tyrant, but he is not the worst tyrant imaginable. I expect that I would be worse, for instance.

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (QTHTd)

31 This leaves you hoping that when you awaken in the morning, you will hear that al Qaeda (or some other group of impotent idiots) have managed to "nuke" DC sometime overnight, so we can begin anew in the morning.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (e8kgV)

32 "18 We have the guns, we make the rules. You follow the rules.

Posted by: The New Social Contract at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (WI2es) "

Pretty much.



Marxism. Kinder and gentler than Capitalism.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (kYKEk)

33 I so wish someone could answer this to my satisfaction. I keep coming
back to the sad position that most really prefer social slavery.


I think this is true, and given the way they've voted, they're probably right to defer to others. They're to stupid to vote for themselves.

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (6TB1Z)

34 Enough already with the French.

sic semper . . .

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (QTHTd)

35 (Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.)

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)



You know the rules. *taps foot* C'mon, up goes the webcam.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (Gk3SS)

36 13 However Reynolds reached the conclusion I'm ok with. Welcome to the party Reynolds.

Yup.
The more the merrier.

The Left has used the Constitution to gain power, and aplaud itwhen it suits them.
And now they want to discard it?
Well we know they aren't very good at 'results oriented thinking'...and this is a prime example of not carrying out a thought to it's logicalconclusion.


Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (eyJSG)

37 And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to replace this system with

----

We don't have to replace the system, we first have to make sure that there is a system, and then we modify the system.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (gmeXX)

38 How can I be a tyrant and look this good?

*does that annoying little brush-off-the-shoulders gesture*

Posted by: Barack Obama, President Forever at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (/AHDz)

39 "20 The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and I don't think that Obama was elected by a fair election when a city less then 50 miles from me has areas that voted 100% for one party. So I don't have to be bound by that document. Is that how it works?

Posted by: illegally posting anonymously on the internet at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (feFL6) "

The Constitution has been aborted.


You're welcome.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (kYKEk)

40 To be fair, I think Insty has been at the party for a while.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (gmeXX)

41 >>> Enough already with the French.

On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB)

42 In order to fix this government over-expansion we should probably elect a guy who has experience busting up big organizations and selling off the pieces at a profit.

Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (EZl54)

43 35 (Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.)

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)

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

You know the rules. *taps foot* C'mon, up goes the webcam.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (Gk3SS)



No. No no no no no NO NO.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (GEICT)

44 The problem is the group that has abandoned the restrictions of the Constitution control the police and military. The time is coming but it's not here yet. May God have mercy on us when it comes because it will be worse than we can imagine. Make no mistake it's coming, probably when the inevitable financial collapse comes, so keep your powder dry.

Posted by: Weirdflunky at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (tlhtD)

45 Obama is a classical tyrant, but he is not the worst tyrant imaginable. I expect that I would be worse, for instance.


Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (QTHTd)


Which is exactly why, at THIS point in history, they are pushing to take any Militarily Viable Weapons away from the Citizenry.

ONLY an Armed Populace has any say in what comes after a failure of Government.

Jefferson and such KNEW this to be true.... some of us remember... and those of the Left FEAR it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (lZBBB)

46 "25 16 ˇSí, Soros! ˇHe dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)


Good grief. Enough already with the French.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (GEICT) "

:-)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:17 PM (kYKEk)

47 That's an excellent column nailing the point I had made in my head on this hike I'm on wrt a post I'd told Mero last night I was shining my dancing shoes for this evening. In the end my fears and rage at the Ohio poll workers antics are predicated on the idea that the United States of Chicago will not stop and is too pervaisve and invasive. The GOP's failure to sound the alarm for reform is just as onerousn.

I'll elaborate in a bit.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2013 06:17 PM (Tz4Vo)

48 In order to fix this government over-expansion we should probably elect a guy who has experience busting up big organizations and selling off the pieces at a profit.

---

You rang.

Posted by: Gordon Gecko at February 25, 2013 06:17 PM (gmeXX)

49 Every once once in while I read something that gives me the willies. This excerpt from GR is one of them.

Posted by: Baldy at February 25, 2013 06:18 PM (opS9C)

50 Time for a Conservative Spring!

(It's working so well for the folks in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. - and best of all, Liberals LOVE all of these Peoples' Revolutions.....)

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 25, 2013 06:18 PM (ADnWI)

51 "You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be
tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to
exercise power you don’t possess."


My favorite part.

Posted by: Dang at February 25, 2013 06:18 PM (R18D0)

52 41 >>> Enough already with the French.

----------

On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB)




Hey he responded to something I wrote!



Shit. It's in French.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (GEICT)

53

Obama made people feel secure as wards of the state. Autonomy is overrated.

His new slogan was chosen carefully. FORWARD.

For Wards.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (LPRBM)

54 Glenn. R is suggesting a Constitutional Convention, is that even a possibility really? We've got all the hard red Southern states that could lead, but so many of the swing states seem more blue or purple at best. So what else then?

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (0PiQ4)

55 4 Mero,

Pretty much I have at least an initial position anyway tonight bud....

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (Tz4Vo)

56 @47
Hey sven I am looking forward to reading it. Are you going to post it in the ONT or on a blog? ( like the one AllenG should probably look into)

Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (EZl54)

57 "41 >>> Enough already with the French.

On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB) "

Oui. :-P

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (kYKEk)

58 Reynolds used to play the I'm a Libertarian pox on both their houses card a lot. It may have been gradual, but I remember one day seeing something that would have garnered a heh an he wrote something like (paraphrasing) and this why Democrats are evil and shot on sight. And I was like, dude.

Posted by: blaster at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (/1U3u)

59 There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government.


amen

long time forgotten

Posted by: beach at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (LpQbZ)

60 Somehow I thought everyone here thought Glenn Reynolds is exactly the same as Luap Nor.


You mean libertarians can come in more than one flavor? Who knew?

Posted by: jc at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (i8c5b)

61 Shorter version:we're boned.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (9XBK2)

62 7 wheatie,

Yup...but said well by him is good the idea gans steam

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (Tz4Vo)

63 On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais.

I will not put your jimmy cream in my throat?

Posted by: Unemployed French to English translator at February 25, 2013 06:20 PM (feFL6)

64 "You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be

tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to

exercise power you don’t possess."


You won't enjoy the experience.

Posted by: Homer Stokes at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (6TB1Z)

65 Oh good! Multicultural comment thread. Got Spanish and French here. Yay! We're cool now!

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (0PiQ4)

66 Glenn. R is suggesting a Constitutional Convention, is that even a possibility really? We've got all the hard red Southern states that could lead, but so many of the swing states seem more blue or purple at best. So what else then?

----

Its only possible if we try. If you wait until you have 2/3 (or is 3/4) of the states in line, no. But if you get 5 to propose a convention using the framework Burnett laid out, then you start the groundswell. Maybe it never works out, maybe it starts rolling and enough Senators see the way the wind is blowing. Maybe it is something a true leader can campaign on. But start the process. Let's roll. This country is worth saving.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:22 PM (gmeXX)

67 Nobody in here ever lumped all libertarians in with Ronnie nut job,many in here are professed libertarian or libertarian leaning.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2013 06:22 PM (9XBK2)

68 The power of govt could be trimmed a bit. I'm thinking a Scottish Claymore is the right tool for such "adjustments"

Posted by: @PurpAv at February 25, 2013 06:22 PM (/gHaE)

69 La gauche riche nuveax est devenu le nuveax marxistes.

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:22 PM (eyJSG)

70 If libtards will roll over for criminals, Islamo-Nazis, Marxist professors, OWS dorks, social deviants etc. they will roll over for the anyone who is acting in a threatening manner.

Conservatives haven't done this.

Yet.

Posted by: Dang at February 25, 2013 06:24 PM (R18D0)

71 Ixnay with the Enchfray.

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2013 06:24 PM (6TB1Z)

72 "65 Oh good! Multicultural comment thread. Got Spanish and French here. Yay! We're cool now!

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (0PiQ4) "

Nous sommes chaud. :-P

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:24 PM (kYKEk)

73 SH maybe you're right. Glenn said that his leftist Occupy students were just as interested in the idea as the tea party types. With our luck, we get it happen, and we'd wind up with Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing up the new draft.

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:25 PM (0PiQ4)

74 Liberté, égalité, fraternité!!!

Because it worked out so well for the French!

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:25 PM (lZBBB)

75 Translaçion:

The nuveax rich Left have become nuveax Marxists.

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:26 PM (eyJSG)

76 74 To be fair,the guillotine might come in handy.

Posted by: steevy at February 25, 2013 06:26 PM (9XBK2)

77 Let's start wth the First and silence the Press and the Left.

Since they support the idea.

Posted by: zsasz at February 25, 2013 06:26 PM (wWb/B)

78 A new speech by former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has emerged--a 2011 address at Cameron University in which the Secretary of Defense nominee accused India of using Afghanistan to fight a proxy war against Pakistan by sponsoring terror attacks against it. Video of the speech was obtained by Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon by using the state's Open Records Act. Hagel had refused to grant authorization to release the video.

There is no apparent basis for Hagel's charge. India has been the repeated victim of terror attacks emanating from Pakistan, including the notorious attacks in November 2008 against an international hotel and a Jewish center in Mumbai. The Free Beacon quotes Sadanand Dhume, former India bureau chief at the Far Eastern Economic Review, concluding that Hagel's remarks as "over-the-top and a sharp departure from a U.S. position that has seen democratic India as a stabilizing influence in Afghanistan and Asia more broadly." Dhume added that Hagel's position is "exactly the sort of statement that would have frayed ties with New Delhi."


At the Nation of Islam Annual Saviours' Day Convention, keynote speaker Louis Farrakhan took his usual Anti-Semitic tone with a current affairs twist. Farrakhan endorsed Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense saying Hagel's controversial "Jewish lobby" comments were a good thing that will save America from war for Israel.

Iran, Hamas, Farrakhan and cock sucking Jewish Senators in name only support hagel. I hope they all drop dead

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2013 06:26 PM (jE38p)

79 Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (0PiQ4) "

dhurka, dhurka.... Islamic Jihad....

Posted by: Memeber, Film Actors Guild at February 25, 2013 06:26 PM (lZBBB)

80 Reynolds used to play the I'm a Libertarian pox on both their houses card a lot. It may have been gradual, but I remember one day seeing something that would have garnered a heh an he wrote something like (paraphrasing) and this why Democrats are evil and shot on sight. And I was like, dude

----

He was pretty clearly a full blown Mitt supporter. I think Obama convinced him that Obama was much much worse.

What upsets me about the libertarian movement is its lack of focus on the big picture. And it seems to get a bum rap around here. I consider myself a libertarian, but primarily on economic issues and with respect to the federal government. Must less so at the social level.

But the libertarians today, like the youth who are so infatuated with it, only care about pot, gay marriage and abortion. I doubt that they are all potheads. So while they are focusing on things that really only affect 5% of the population (gay marriage) or 50% of the population (abortion), they don't care about the things that affect 100% of the population -- the threat to our economic liberties.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:27 PM (gmeXX)

81 And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds
doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to
replace this system with?


The Constitution. As it was written. With life altering penalties for violating it.


Posted by: rickb223 - May God bless Texas at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (d0Dmj)

82 Si nous sommes désossées... puis ils sont désossées trop.

[If we are boned...then they are boned too.]

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (eyJSG)

83 Reynolds is no dummy and he's putting it into language that almost any dummy can understand if only they'll take the time and effort to think it through.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (piMMO)

84 All good stuff until he says that people care. They don't. They like cutting spending in the abstract I suppose but not in the details.

They just kept a guy with 8% unemployment that ran on cancer states and binders full of women.

Posted by: Dave S. at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (xDlyw)

85 Hey he responded to something I wrote!



Shit. It's in French.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (GEICT)
All latin-based languages are understandable with the universal medicine.

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (6v/2T)

86 Unfortunately, neither the States nor the Individual can employ nullification like that. The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is. We do not get to interpret it and even the governors don't get to interpret it in a way inconsistent with the findings of SCOTUS.

It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living breathing document, we are out of luck

Posted by: tommylotto at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (LBxr1)

87 The power of govt could be trimmed a bit. I'm thinking a Scottish Claymore is the right tool for such "adjustments"


I'm thinking a Vietnam Era claymore would be better.

Posted by: rickb223 - May God bless Texas at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (d0Dmj)

88 The problem is that half the population is afraid of government for different reasons. Some are afraid of losing freedom; some are afraid of corporate interests amassing power through cronyism; and the cult of the vajayjay is afraid of their wombs being invaded (or something). So now I not only fear the government, I resent my neighbor who calls on the government to exert its authority against me.

Oddly enough, last night's Oscars ceremony pretty much cemented my fear and loathing of the government. They are everwhere and we cannot get away from them. And their enablers cannot in Hollywood, the press, and other cultural institutions are just fine and dandy with it.

So between ubiquitous government and the culture that feeds it, just where the hell are we supposed to turn? Where will battle lines be drawn?

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (OMkfK)

89 The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is.


How many divisions does scotus have?

Posted by: rickb223 - May God bless Texas at February 25, 2013 06:30 PM (d0Dmj)

90 85
All latin-based languages are understandable with the universal medicine.

Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (6v/2T)



Hey braggy mcbraggerson, either share or (as I was recently told) stfu.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:31 PM (GEICT)

91 It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long
as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living
breathing document, we are out of luck


How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2013 06:31 PM (6TB1Z)

92 Je pas orgasme dans votre bouche.

Posted by: Unemployed French to English translator at February 25, 2013 06:31 PM (feFL6)

93 Bleagh. Just posted bunch of rambling horse shit. Just scrape it off before you enter the next post. Sorry.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at February 25, 2013 06:31 PM (OMkfK)

94 "If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory."

I've been thinking along those lines for a few years now. I felt paranoid and foolish at first for thinking this way, but now? Now, not so much.

But here's the big question: does anyone in their heart of hearts believe the hardcore true believers of the professional Left (for lack of a better term), having spent literally decades scheming, plotting, maneuvering, and making their long march through the institutions in order to attain power, are going to give up that power as the result of free and fair elections? I don't, not for a moment. We can argue among ourselves all day long, do all the navel-gazing and soul-searching we like, attempt to pinpoint What Is Wrong With The GOP (a great deal, as it turns out), but none of that matters. The fix is in.

Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (vtiE6)

95 Posted by: tommylotto at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (LBxr1)


And that is exactly what the Feds want you to believe.


If they can convince us we are powerless, then indeed, we are....

The Founders however, believed otherwise....

Posted by: Memeber, Film Actors Guild at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (lZBBB)

96 No. No no no no no NO NO.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (GEICT)



Geese, ganders, suck it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (Gk3SS)

97 "86 Unfortunately, neither the States nor the Individual can employ nullification like that. The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is. We do not get to interpret it and even the governors don't get to interpret it in a way inconsistent with the findings of SCOTUS.

It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living breathing document, we are out of luck

Posted by: tommylotto at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (LBxr1) "

But the SCOTUS derives its autorite from the Constitution, n'est pas?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (kYKEk)

98 L, elle @ 54:

The Founding Fathers didn't add the "non-convention" option for amending the Constitution until the last few days of their meetings in Philadelphia; it was presumed to that point that conventions would be the norm rather than the exception.

You want a living document? That's how you get a living document. Problem is, it is always at the cost of the power of those in power.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at February 25, 2013 06:33 PM (XrGnJ)

99 they don't care about the things that affect 100% of the population -- the threat to our economic liberties.

Posted by: SH


those are the libertarians in your head. the libertarians I know care about economic freedom.

Posted by: No Feet Johnson at February 25, 2013 06:34 PM (KHo8t)

100 Un plume de me tante et rouge.

Posted by: zsasz at February 25, 2013 06:34 PM (wWb/B)

101 I think the Unemployed French to English translator is saying dirty stuff @92.

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (0PiQ4)

102 The Constitution was supposed to contain lines that would never be crossed. Strangely, even those in the SCOTUS failed to recognize that principle on more than one occasion. And these are the ones we're supposed to trust to make sure the rules are followed? Take a look at that ridiculous decision on the 14th Amendment that created "anchor babies" from the plain wording that prevents it.

Now we have an entire administration that thinks it can do whatever it pleases, ignoring the basic Law of the Land in the process. What's worse, when you point out the simple fact that there is a line, you're called "EXTREMIST!!!!!!" It's one of those things that is almost too simple for some to understand.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (+z4pE)

103 96 Geese, ganders, suck it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (Gk3SS)



Ladies first.


Btw, you ever get that nobility out of your eye?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:36 PM (GEICT)

104 Damn it, CAC!

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:36 PM (kYKEk)

105 The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is.

It's not supposed to be. That was a usurpation of power on the Court's part.

If that were true, then we would be living under the rule of "nine lawyers in black robes" as Mark Levin says.

I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power.

Posted by: rickl at February 25, 2013 06:37 PM (sdi6R)

106 28
"...how did we get stuck with him for another term?"

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

***

Because Romney's chief campaign strategist was so dense as to not know (or care) that the media was wholly in the tank for Obama; a fact he confirmed in an interview Ace linked to in the sidebar.

If Rule 1 of winning a fight is to know when you're in one, Rule 1(a) has got to be to know who you're fighting.



Posted by: Cancelled the Cable at February 25, 2013 06:37 PM (u3N3z)

107 The federal government has done a great job through the 20th century to make itself more powerful. It wasn't all through the progressive amendments and supreme court. Here are just a couple of examples:

1. Federalizingthe National Guard - this removed one impediment
2. Income tax witholding - in the old days, the crown had to come get you for taxes, now your employer does it.

There are many others.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:37 PM (gmeXX)

108 "101 I think the Unemployed French to English translator is saying dirty stuff @92.

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (0PiQ4) "

Yes, but it's in less-than-standard French. :-P

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:37 PM (kYKEk)

109 100 Un plume de me tante et rouge.








Désolé, mais qui n'a aucun sens.

[Sorry, but that makes no sense.]

Posted by: wheatie at February 25, 2013 06:38 PM (eyJSG)

110 Reynolds did a presentation back in 93 (I think) about the second amendment that pretty much reads exactly like Heller. Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution.

Posted by: blaster at February 25, 2013 06:38 PM (/1U3u)

111 Barnett I meant to type.

Posted by: blaster at February 25, 2013 06:39 PM (/1U3u)

112 Reynolds did a presentation back in 93 (I think) about the second amendment that pretty much reads exactly like Heller. Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution

---

I think any 3rd grader would have a good way of thinking about the Constitution. If you just read what it says, you get about 95% of the way there.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:40 PM (gmeXX)

113 Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution.

Posted by: blaster at February 25, 2013 06:38 PM (/1U3u)


Maybe he was cribbing the founders.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:40 PM (bxiXv)

114 Anyway, I'll be on strike until there's a new NonCAC thread. :-P


Later.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 25, 2013 06:40 PM (kYKEk)

115 Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (+z4pE)


IMO the Line that Killed our Rights... 'The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact'...

ie, in the name of public saftey, we can ignore the Constitution, instead of AMEND it (as I believe the Framers intended...).

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:41 PM (lZBBB)

116 Romeo - where is that from?

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:41 PM (gmeXX)

117 I'll link once again to the comment by Subotai Bahadur at Belmont Club that I posted yesterday morning, for those who missed it. He has also been questioning the legitimacy of the government as currently constituted.

http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=337805#c20243073

Posted by: rickl at February 25, 2013 06:42 PM (sdi6R)

118
and the lefties call Bob Owens a nut. NOBODY* talked about stuff like this 20 years ago. Nobody.

*except crazed radicals. Mr. Instapundit is sort of the opposite of a crazed radical.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at February 25, 2013 06:42 PM (AbHls)

119

> 15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?
Posted by: L, elle


Dude. Free cell phones!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at February 25, 2013 06:43 PM (AbHls)

120 I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power.

Why 2/3rds, with a simple majority they could fix the offending bill?

Posted by: Jean at February 25, 2013 06:44 PM (z6Elp)

121 I talked about stuff like this 20 years ago.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:46 PM (bxiXv)

122 ie, in the name of public saftey, we can ignore the Constitution, instead of AMEND it (as I believe the Framers intended...).

No, we cannot ignore the Contitution. Our fight is against those who are ignoring it today. Nothing needa amending except to curb abuses, and only then to reinforce the Founding Principles of limited governmental power.

What is most needed, IMO, is folks to stand up and say, "No."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at February 25, 2013 06:47 PM (+z4pE)

123 It's not revolution it's fundamental transformation.

La révolution de respiration vivante dans votre bouche ne sera pas télévisée

Posted by: Gil Scott-Heron with outstretched pinky at February 25, 2013 06:48 PM (feFL6)

124

> 15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?
Posted by: L, elle


Seriously, a significant number of Obama voters see him as the reformer. They think Repubs run both houses of Congress and the Supreme court. That Obama is the one standing between a scary govt. and themselves.

Just look at the exit poll interview videos posted here (I guess).

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at February 25, 2013 06:48 PM (AbHls)

125 Where I think Glenn is right, is this is going to come to a head sooner rather than later. I don't know what form it will take, nor what the outcome will be. But the country cannot continue in this fashion.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:49 PM (gmeXX)

126 anyone still here or do I wait until the ONT?

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2013 06:49 PM (LRFds)

127 Just me - so you better wait.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:50 PM (gmeXX)

128 Go read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason", and force everyone you know to read it too.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 25, 2013 06:51 PM (OgNv0)

129 120 I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power.

Why 2/3rds, with a simple majority they could fix the offending bill?
Posted by: Jean at February 25, 2013 06:44 PM (z6Elp)


The way I understand it, if a large enough majority in Congress believes that their legislation is OK as is, they would be able to overturn the Supreme Court decision.

Changing the legislation would be deferring to the Court.

Posted by: rickl at February 25, 2013 06:52 PM (sdi6R)

130
I originally adopted my nic because this guy used to get his e-mails to Glenn posted on Instapundit like they were Gospel, and I thought that was total busllshit.

Glenn is having an epiphany here, which has been in the making for some years. This is not totally unexpected, but he is picking sides now. I think some of the minor leagueLeftist ankle-biters that attack him arereally forcing histrain of thought and decision.

In this country, per the Constitution, only THE PEOPLE are sovereign.Our representatives and the President gain authority by electoral choice ofTHE PEOPLE. And whenever a government becomes destructive of these rights, the people have a right to dissolve it.
TheSupreme Court exists only because of the structure of the Constitution and the adviseand consent of the Senate toa President's choice. Rightfully,THE PEOPLE can upend and change whatever they choose.

I do not want to say that power flows out of the barrel of a gun, because that is Maoist-Marxist think-speak. We are a nation of laws, and cutting down those laws to get after this......person .....who is President and mocks the Law because he is special, is a dangerous path.


You best be really revolutionary RED and be willing to go to the barricades over this, because half - measures will only bring MORE repression, and half the country will be rooting it on - to maintain order. Being just parlor pink and talking the talk of a revolution will just get a lot of other people hurt.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 25, 2013 06:55 PM (RFeQD)

131 I prefer giving 3/5 of the states the option to nullify a law to restore some federalism back into the structure.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:55 PM (gmeXX)

132 Its time for a few states to start calling for a convention.
--

Although our options are getting more and more limited by the day, a constitutional convention scares the crap out of me. What makes anyone think that the marxists won't hijack the process or wiggle themselves into key positions?

I also distrust the GOP. The majority have not stood up for the Constitution or conservative principles the past 4 years so what makes us think they would do it then? Even the people we put faith in from time to time have proven to be disappointments when the pedal is to the metal (Chris Christie, Bushes, Romney, even Marco Rubio, McCain, etc).

Anyone with solid conservative principles would be demonized (or worse) beyond anything we've seen thus far if the stakes were as high as a constitutional convention. I don't care how a convention is "supposed" to work. There is too much at stake and I fear the process would be corrupted.

And even best case, how would the LIV not turn it into codifying gay marriage, poly-marriage, minimum wage of $50/hour with annual 10% increases, health care "rights" (and a zillion other new "rights" to be built into Constitution 2.0), all kinds of diversity carve-outs, open borders, gun control/registration, and a whole slew of other horrors added that are not in the current constitution?

I wish I was just being pessimistic, but I haven't seen anything the past few years to make me think differently. Granted, we don't have many options left and a CC is one, but I'm not at all sure it would solve the problem. I don't see George Washington or Ronald Reagan caliber people being at the helm.

Posted by: Mayday at February 25, 2013 06:57 PM (F3s39)

133 In this country, per the Constitution, only THE PEOPLE are sovereign

---

What about the states? They are just as sovereign. The true genius of the founders was the concept of dual sovereignty. Seperation of powers was nothing new. Dual sovereignty, now that was genius.

Posted by: SH at February 25, 2013 06:57 PM (gmeXX)

134
The Constitution does indeed address "the Sovereign States", but again, the legitimacy of any government in this country rests with the final sovereignty of the people.

The GOP is indeed a leaky and worthless vessel. There are individuals withing the party that may be admirable. But the party itself has become rotten, just not as vulgarly enamored of power as the Democrats, which are also truly rotten. The do indeed pay lip service to Federalism, and the separation of powers, but they all worship at the altar of the false idol of government power. Few now speak openly of the fundemental rights, liberties, and priveledges of citizens. And our government is intent on bringing in new people to supplant the citizens and dilute the value of being a citizen of this country.

The President of these United States and quite a number of the other people in the central government loathe and despise you, and wouldblindly walk over a field of dead bodies to get and keep their power.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 25, 2013 07:06 PM (RFeQD)

135 The President of these United States and quite a number of the other
people in the central government loathe and despise you, and
wouldblindly walk over a field of dead bodies to get and keep their
power.
--

Agree. They will not give up power voluntarily, or easily, and any attempt will leave a lot of damage in its wake.

They are half the problem. "The people" are the other half.

Posted by: Mayday at February 25, 2013 07:25 PM (F3s39)

136 You best be really revolutionary RED and be willing to go to the barricades over this, because half - measures will only bring MORE repression, and half the country will be rooting it on - to maintain order. Being just parlor pink and talking the talk of a revolution will just get a lot of other people hurt.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 25, 2013 06:55 PM (RFeQD)

You need to clarify what you mean here. When you write, '...willing to go to the barricades over this...', you don't say what 'this' is. So far, it's all been talk--and rightfully so. Using your red/pink analogy, we've all been the conservative equivalents of parlor pinks to this point. I think many of us have adopted a wait-and-see attitude largely because there is not yet a consensus on what the red lines are or should be. Whatever it is, it will have to be a triggering event big enough to galvanize an activeresistance into being. To make that happen, the federal government would have to commit an act of unmistakable overreach, something no one can miss, something not even the MSM could bury or explain away. I have no idea what that might be. My Magic 8-ball says COME BACK LATER.

Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2013 07:25 PM (vtiE6)

137 The Constitution is in fact ignored. The massive size and scope of the "federal" government is a daily reminder of the end of the Constitutional order.

And, no Constitution, no union.
Simple as that.

Posted by: Dr Foistus at February 25, 2013 07:34 PM (+kznc)

138 137 Dr Foistus,

correct the Constitution is not a love letter to unlimited government and i did not sign on to that 'social contract."

I am not going to blindly trust a government that refuses to enforce the border or thwart gangs.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2013 07:37 PM (LRFds)

139 Whatever it is, it will have to be a triggering event big enough to
galvanize an activeresistance into being. To make that happen, the
federal government would have to commit an act of unmistakable
overreach, something no one can miss, something not even the MSM could
bury or explain away.

--

Assassinating American citizens without due process? Check.

Covering up the murder of an Ambassador and two SEALS? Check. Starting wars without Congressional approval? Check.

Forcing every citizen to purchase a product solely because they breathe? Check.

Cult of personality, pervasive propaganda, media collusion with government, relentless demonization of political opponents? Check.

Government enforced physical/sexual harassment of travelers including children, handicapped, elderly? Check.

Spending trillions while not submitting a budget for 4 years? Check.

I'm not sure what has to happen next. People disappearing in the night?

Posted by: Mayday at February 25, 2013 07:43 PM (F3s39)

140 But here's the big question: does anyone in their heart of hearts believe the hardcore true believers of the professional Left (for lack of a better term), having spent literally decades scheming, plotting, maneuvering, and making their long march through the institutions in order to attain power, are going to give up that power as the result of free and fair elections? I don't, not for a moment. We can argue among ourselves all day long, do all the navel-gazing and soul-searching we like, attempt to pinpoint What Is Wrong With The GOP (a great deal, as it turns out), but none of that matters. The fix is in.
Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (vtiE6)


I agree that the fix is in. I became convinced of that during the election in 2010 and the results in California, which were diametrically opposed to the rest of the country. I think California is/was the laboratory for stealing elections. The Left used to just shop judges to stop referenda they didn't like. Then they figured out that elections could be messy...and unpredictable...and occasionally the rubes on the right would win some. So why not just fix the whole thing.

Kind of like Stalin said, "it's who counts the votes that matters".

Posted by: LGoPs at February 25, 2013 08:28 PM (BJVEF)

141 Finally, the truth! Only point missed is when people foresake their oath, they have technically resigned from their jobs, and no longer carry the authority of their previous office. In any event no one has the authority to carry out an illegal order, and since our justice system is based on the constitution, any orders contrary to the constitution can not legally even be issued. Further, since obama, under the constitution can not legally be president, any orders or directives he gives are illegal and can not be carried out. Anyone who carries out any law derived from obama is the fruit of the poison tree, and if carried forward is evidence that the person has foresaken his oath of office, has quit his job, and no longer carries the responsibility or authority of the office. Further, since our representative republic is owned, operated, and staffed by we the people as the government, under constitutional directive, anyone who has foresaken their oath, is no longer part of the government, and while operating in support of, or under guidance of anyone in the obama insurrection, is technically an insurrectionist! Only we the people are the government and only we the people have the authority to be the government, operate the government, and run this country.

Posted by: Usbpretired at February 25, 2013 10:49 PM (GoGL1)

142 In the fighter pilot world translation: "Green 'em up. Fight's on."

Posted by: Electric at February 25, 2013 10:49 PM (u2UBf)

143 The other option is to place less power within the political sphere.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense, which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.


I defy anyone to say how even the thought of a revolution,
of an insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a
government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing
injustice.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the
people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob against a
Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools
of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs?

Everyone
knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government
were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that
these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

-- Frederic Bastiat (French guy from, like, 150 years ago)

Posted by: Phinn at February 25, 2013 11:42 PM (oFH2D)

144 87 I'm thinking a Vietnam Era claymore would be better

Front Toward Enemy

Posted by: houndofdoom at February 26, 2013 12:37 AM (QDd3w)

145 "The other option is to place less power within the political sphere."

I tell friends who bemoan the lack of centrism today that it's because the government controls too much: it's too important and interferes in some many areas that used to be private that warfare is the inevitable result, as we are all supplicants at the king's table now, neighbors no longer.

A mortgage used to be between a person and a bank, a company used to make a washing machine and then try to sell it. There's a third party in every relationship now, one with unlimited power to dole out the dollars or the punishments.

Posted by: PJ at February 26, 2013 12:39 AM (ZWaLo)

146 You can't have a revolution without a recognized government. The illegal muts in power who have foresaken the constitution have also foresaken their authority and liability umbrellas of a given by constitutional law. So since we the people are the gov't and the insurrectionsts in power are not the government because legally they can't be, then it is the duty of the government, we the people, to expell the insurrectionists. If you have an illegal order generator, then he and anyone who follows any part of his illegal orders is also operating outside the constitutional law and has no legal jurisdiction, authority, or standing. Same as if heriberto lazcano-lazcano came in and declared himself president. But he would have probably done a better job!

Posted by: Po-leese at February 26, 2013 09:55 PM (GoGL1)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.2224 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.2028 seconds, 155 records returned.
Page size 97 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