Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpy17
I just need the names of the asshats that voted for this POS, I have the phone numbers. I doubt it would stand up to a challenge in The Supreme Court but the troubling (2) things are;
It's going to take time to mount a defense against said bill and in that time a lot of damage will be done not to mention that no matter what, this bill will be back in another form.
What is really wanted by "them" is something in between the stated intent and wording of the ordinal bill, they'd settle for a "compromise bill" at first just to get their foot in the door then in oh say 1-4 years time they'll be back with part 2.
IMHO this rag is unconstitutional on many levels but let's not forget one VERY important thing, Ben Franklin was so right.
Ratbastages!
|
Troubling thing is that many unconstitutional laws get upheld by the courts for years, even decades before eventually being struck down.
Federal drug seizure laws are still being upheld despite being in obvious violation of the Constitution. Ditto for "Terry stops" and the RICO Act. Taft-Hartley is an obvious violation of the 13th Amend., but has been on the books since 1947. Portions of the Espionage Act of 1917 are still on the books today, which, along with the Sedition Act of 1918, was in blatant violation of the First Amendment. In a case involving the subject of my username, the Supreme Court upheld these laws.
In fact, the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights I can think of that hasn't been trampled on by all three branches of government is the 3rd Amendment (no quartering of troops in people's homes).
This is why people like Jefferson advocated
limited government. He, and others realized, no matter how well you write the Constitution, no matter how many rights you explicitly codify, there will be a tendency for government to ignore those rights.