► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘US constitution’

Seized Property Lies Vacant 9 Years After Landmark Eminent Domain Case

by 1389AD ( 28 Comments › )
Filed under SCOTUS at March 26th, 2014 - 6:00 pm

On YouTube:


Published on Mar 22, 2014 by yazchat
Michael Cristofaro talks eminent domain [Kelo v. City of New London]
Fox & Friends
Fox News
Fox News Insider: The Official Live Blog of Fox News Channel
Fox News Live Wall Chat
Fox Business
Fox Nation

Mark Levin Is On To Something Here.

by Flyovercountry ( 143 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism at August 20th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

Article V, U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
which in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratifi ed by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratifi cation may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
eight shall in any Manner affect the fi rst and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the fi rst Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

Emphasis mine.

Hopefully, you’ve played the Levin audio. I have just a few points to make here. One is that this is extremely doable. It would require the consent of 34 State Legislatures. While it is true that we have been basically splitting the past national elections in what statistically is pretty darned close to 50/50 in terms of population, while losing in the electoral college by a margin that skews the results to resemble a blowout, that is representative of the larger population States mostly going to the liberal candidates, who do well in large urban areas. Conversely, conservatives will usually win a greater number of States. While this was not true during the previous two elections, click this link to gain a visual sense of why I still believe it possible. What this shows is a county by county breakdown of how America voted in 2012. What probably struck you immediately, was the vast contrast between red and blue on that map.

A grass roots effort undertaken by Americans tired of having their freedoms removed, however gradually, by a ruling elite, who by the way are always careful to exempt themselves from those very programs and intrusions that they deem beneficial for our own good, could avail themselves of the constitutional process so very thoughtfully included by our founding fathers. Those insightful men had the foresight to see that the framework they gave to us might one day become tyrannical. The story which Levin relates is empowering. Originally, Madison only included one method by which our Constitution may be amended, and George Mason pointed out that a federal behemoth, which had become tyrannical itself, would never undertake to relinquish its own power. Thus, the second method for amending our Constitution was included. There have been 17 amendments which have followed since the original ratification of our founding document, all of which have occurred via the first method. It is time to get on board with this idea to force the decentralization of the massive amount of power the federal government has granted to itself.

Whether you agree with Levin’s specific proposed amendments or not, there are at least a few undeniable truths here which deserve mention. One, such a convention would not be limited to only those amendments proposed by Levin. Two, there is no guarantee that Levin’s own amendments would pass, nor even receive consideration by such a process. Three, it would be an avenue for massive numbers of citizens who have been long frustrated by a process that seems to have removed itself entirely from both the constraint of the governed, and any accountability for such removal, to have their say. I understand the frustration felt by many among us, which has largely manifested itself in the form of useless protest votes or the other seemingly destructive behavior of just not voting at all, believing there to be no difference between the two major Parties. This however, would be a way to remove major swaths of power from both of these groups, including more importantly that group of self anointed ruling elites who so benevolently concern themselves with the well being of the great unwashed masses that most of us belong to. This initiative could even discuss Amendments to give ability to other national parties to grow for increased competition in the arena of ideas, by removing all federal money from the campaign process for example. Why our major political parties receive federal support in the first place is beyond me entirely.

I realize that Levin has written a book and this tour touting this idea may be his way of selling copies of that book. To that I say, so gosh darned what. That does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is not a brilliant idea. My conclusion is this, sign me up, let’s get this ball rolling. Where is the petition, door knocking campaign, list of local organizing cabals of unwashed masses, or the somebody that can get us all going in the right direction here?

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Pew Pew Pew

by Bunk X ( 58 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Crime, OOT, Progressives, Weapons at December 27th, 2012 - 2:19 am

“Each AK-47 Paper Model Kit comes with all the materials and instructions to construct this amazingly life-like paper model of an AK-47. [via]

Here’s a solution to the Anti-2nd Amendment (Anti-Self-Defense) crowd.

I propose that every child over the age of 10 be instructed in the safe handling and use of firearms; and that every adult shall be required to purchase, carry and display either a genuine weapon or a paper facsimile (painted flat black) at all times. The criminal element will be unnerved and uncertain as to who might return fire.

Licensed law-abiding citizens who desire to may carry the real deal, while those who are scared of the prospect of having to defend themselves with weaponry may use this inexpensive biodegradable camouflage and hope that a thug doesn’t challenge them with a flick of the Bic to the barrel. If that happens, the masquerade is as effective as a blackened bratwurst in a toilet paper tube.

But that won’t happen because Mister Gangbang can’t be sure that the real deal isn’t aimed at Mister Happy by an unseen bystander – with a bright red laser sighted on his cojones.


Sentients Flock To Chik-Fil-A

by Bunk X ( 87 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Censorship, Christianity, Communism, Fascism, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Liberal Fascism, OOT, Open thread, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Religion, Socialism at August 1st, 2012 - 11:00 pm

Here’s the premise:
Because Chik-Fil-A’s parent company supports traditional religious values and donated money to an organization that promotes heterosexual marriage, they must be against homosexuality; therefore we should boycott the independent franchise owners and send them and their employees to the poorhouse for the religious opinions of someone they likely have never met.

Pheew. That’s an enormous steaming pile of illogic to begin with, and it’s obviously a thinly veiled attack on the US Constitution and a test of the validity of the First Amendment. It has nothing at all to do with poking bungholes or spanking in tongues. Where is the ACLU to protect these innocent restauranteurs and those they employ, comprised of all races, creeds AND sexual orientation, against such blatant and illegal political thuggery?

If the president of a company said something so boneheaded as to offend every living person in the world – and the Owners of Chik-Fil-A never uttered a word against homosexuality, in fact their public statements said the opposite –  isn’t he/she allowed to speak his/her opinion? Why penalize 2nd and 3rd parties, the franchisees and those they employ, with a speech-squelching boycott? Why even penalize the person who may or may not have made such a remark?

The Bill Of Rights BEGINS with The First Amendment; it wasn’t an afterthought. That some elected officials, including those holding high positions of authority, would even consider supporting such abasement of the concepts of free enterprise and Freedom of Speech is abhorrent. Make no mistake. This is one more small step designed to squelch dissent.

Yeah, I know – preaching to the choir. The image above has nothing to do with my commentary, except that it’s the mental picture Progressives conjure of Conservatives, and works as a visual introduction to
The Overnight Open Thread.


Update: ACLU does the right thing.  h/t Bob in Breckenridge