…that makes them think it’s OK to ignore the law?
The country is in serious trouble when only one third of a major political party thinks that having a dictatorial president is a problem. Of course, if that president was George Bush, instead of the Lightworker, they’d probably think differently.
I’m one of those crazy people who think we should actually follow the Constitution. I thought that George W. Bush should have been impeached, or at least censured as a warning shot, for signing the “assault weapons” banMcCain-Feingold. Not for signing it per se — presidents sign unconstitutional laws all the time, sadly, but for doing so while openly admitting that he thought it was unconstitutional. In so doing, he violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution, which is everyone’s responsibility, and it can’t be punted to the Supreme Court.
Sir,
I am pretty sure it was pre-Pres Bush. Pres Clinton signed the AW Ban – http://tinyurl.com/ov7caqx
You may be right, but he signed some unconstitutional gun-control law. Or at least some law that he said he thought was unconstitutional.
It was McCain-Feingold where he basically said “Everyone seems to want this, but it seems unconstitutional to me.” while signing it.
Rand, do you mean McCain-Feingold? Isnt that is the law that he he openly said was unconstitutional but signed anyway to punt it to the courts to strike down so he didn’t have to?
Yes, that’s what I meant. I fixed it.
Perhaps you/re thinking of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law. Many of us complained that it was unconstitutional at the time when he signed it. A few years later, the Supreme Court overturned much of the law.
A friend of mine in high school had a father who said America needs an “enlightened despot”. As a democrat, he believed that a democracy which passed laws that disagreed with him must be unenlightened.
Progressivism is indeed a religion, an evangelical religion. Drucker called it, “Salvation by Society.” It has its roots in the 19th Century, which is why its solutions are always 19th Century, hierarchical, centralized solutions.
Just following the precedent set by the founder of the Democratic Party in Worcester v Georgia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Hitler explains the Progressive case very eloquently in his rant on being denied a d**k cakes from a bakery. “Just call them homophobes. The dumb liberals on Twitter will believe it.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1_gqbQcI60
Quite simple really:
Progs vote for their candidate, and support their officeholder, no matter what lies they spout (Liawatha Warren, Obama just about every time he opens his mouth); they support their candidate’s appointee – or the candidate themselves – no matter what “victimless crime” they’ve committed (Geithner and non-payment of taxes) so long as:
that candidate or official votes the right way.
That’s all they care about, that’s their only litmus test, that’s the only virtue that matters to them.
Progs do not understand the value of real virtue in office nor how even they can be screwed by a lying, deceitful office-holders.
This is why Hillary – with a lifetime stuffed full of lies, and adding more to the list on a daily basis – gets the level of support she gets.
John Nolte from Breitbart:
Dead Broke Hillary Dodged Sniper Fire With Her Immigrant Parents In Tuzla