Tag: constitution

Constitution? Not in an Airport.

An amusing bit of news:

A man who wrote the fourth amendment on his skin was arrested at an airport.

A Charlottesville man who stripped down to his underwear at Richmond International Airport to protest security-screening procedures was charged with disorderly conduct Thursday, airport police said.

So, just to be clear. If you…

  • …are told to submit to groping and/or ogling by a TSA agent and don’t do so, you’re in trouble.
  • …make ogling more efficient by stripping down to your underwear in line without being asked, you’re in trouble.
  • …write the fourth amendment on your body, your first amendment rights will be violated and you’re in trouble.

Half the people behind this guy in line probably never saw the fourth amendment before this guy took his shirt off, so I say he’s just performing a public service.

Remember folks: Bureaucracy is the art of removing every last vestige of good judgment from every process involved. Don’t gum up the works by scrawling quotes from the nation’s fundamental legal document on your skin. You’re body belongs to the government, and they’ll have none of it, or didn’t you know that?

Happy new year!

Supreme Court Actually Reads Constitution

Well, I’m sure everybody who cares has heard by now that the Supreme Court has affirmed that an individual has the right to own guns, and that the individual right doesn’t have anything to do with military service.

So today we had a “duh” ruling. This is so obvious that one has to wonder when the four dissenting judges are going to be impeached by Congress for blatantly denying Constitutional rights.

What should worry people who care about the Constitution is that this was a 5-4 ruling. That means that there was actually a “swing vote” over such an obvious and clear right protected by the Bill of Rights. That means that it would only take one Constitutionalist judge being replaced by a liberal to erase this obvious, clear right from existence.

I won’t bore people with more punditry — it’s all been said. I’m glad that the Supreme Court has affirmed an obvious fact, and struck down an obviously unconstitutional law. I’ll be happy about that and shut up now.

US Supreme Court of Scientists: Exhalers are polluters

The US Supreme Court has a new diktat for us. Are you ready for this?

Here we go: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

This interesting molecule, without which life on earth would not exist, has been shafted by the US Supreme Court. And I felt sorry for Pluto. This beats what happened to Pluto by a mile.

The problem with this ruling is not the absurdity of calling CO2 a pollutant (which is certainly absurd), but is, yet again, the US Supreme Court ignoring their Constitutional role and pretending to be legislators.

The Supreme Oligarchy essentially decided that Congress erred in not including CO2 in the list of “pollutants” that the EPA is charged with regulating, so they decided to simply amend the law by fiat.

When are people going to wake up and realize that the United States is no longer a country of law, but one of authority? This is not the government described by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, free speech, and McCain

The US Supreme Court is going to hear a campaign finance case. The McCain-Feingold law is one of the most free-speech-infringing pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress, telling Americans what they can and can’t say about politicians during election periods. A weak Republican congress, and a president who forgot his veto pen, all assumed the “bad parts” would be struck down by the Supreme Court. That didn’t happen in 2003, but maybe this time it will. Let’s hope so.

And, if you’re a Republican voting in a primary, remember that McCain doesn’t think Americans should have the right to pool their resources during election time to support politicians and issues, and oppose politicians and issues, without restrictive guidelines that he sets.

The Clowns of the Courts

Last year, the elected Supreme Court Chief Justice of Alabama was told by a federal appeals court judge to remove a piece of furniture from his courthouse. In that case, no law was being broken, and the Judge Moore’s refusal to comply cost him is position. [See Rule of Law verses Rule of Judges]

Now, in San Francisco, the mayor has ordered that marriage licenses be given to homosexual couples, despite the fact that California citizens voted overwhelmingly to make it law that a marriage is between one man and one woman. In this case, the mayor is clearly breaking the law, and no legal or constitutional acrobatics are necessary to realize that. Unlike in the Alabama Ten Commandments issue, there is a clear law on the books in California prohibiting what is being allowed in San Francisco.

And yet, nothing is being done. It is in fact the responsibility of the governor of California to oversee the execution of California’s laws. However, Governor Schwarzenegger has simply issued a statement that he “encourages” San Francisco officials to abide by the law. How nice… and the courts? They are allowing this show to go on for a while because someone misplaced a semicolon in a legal filing. Perhaps the California courts will eventually affirm that the marriage licenses in question are invalid, but the damage has been done.

What we have here is a clear and blatant double-standard. Where Judge Moore broke no law and merely did not bow to the whim of an activist judge, the mayor of San Francisco is openly defying a law recently passed by the majority of California voters, and getting away with it. Whereas Judge Moore could be attacked and vilified because he was upholding what he believed was the foundation of law in Alabama, Mayor Gavin is untouchable because his cause is politically correct and designed to completely dismantle the traditional definition of a family unit.

If this continues and so-called “gay marriage” eventually becomes legal in the US, a government marriage license will be utterly meaningless.