Reading the Constitution on the Floor of the House...

polifrog



Today the Constitution is being read on the floor of the house. I had been content to ignore this as little more than a stunt, but the uproar among Democrats has raised this stunt to something more akin to a gotcha.

Democrats have a serious problem with the Constitution...




Update:

The embedded vid above appears to be broken, but who knows, someone may come along and rethread the reels. Until then in lieu of the the vid I give two quotes below:

Powerline:

I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

And a Washington Times Editorial:

The Constitution was read at the opening of the new session of the House of Representatives yesterday. What was most remarkable about this was the almost hysterical opposition from congressional Democrats and left-wing commentators. In what should have been a united celebration of the nation's foundation document in a period of partisan rancor, liberals instead reinforced the view that they are profoundly uncomfortable with the essential truths underlying American freedom.

Some leftists smugly observed that the literal reading of the document does not convey its full meaning, which has been defined, redefined and sometimes misdefined by successive generations of courts. This argument fit neatly into liberal talking points about the new congressional majority being composed of naive bumpkins who know little of the sophisticated workings of government. Yet Washington's corrupting climate is the very basis of the conservative critique.

The country has strayed far from the artful simplicity of our original founding document. Congress, the executive and the courts all assume powers they never were intended to have. The most recent Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause - which simply was supposed to prevent states from throwing up internal tariff barriers - to give government the right to compel Americans to spend private monies on health insurance. If this power stands, there truly are no limits to the power of the bureaucratic leviathan.

Obama reacted predictably...





out

Rep. Bob Etheridge -- Dissn' the Contitution...

polifrog



I suspect that our government schools failed Bob Etheridge when they covered our Constitution, but how can a person have been so disengaged from society as to have missed being educated on the topic by School House Rock.





In the absence of an acceptable education Bob Etheridge progressed beyond the limitations of checks and balances. Bob Etheridge's Constitution goes like this....



...You'll be taxed and pay, against your will, but today I'm just a bill....


Bob Etheridge, bad for North Carolina, and
Anathema to the Constitution and the United States.






out

Rep. Brad Miller NC-13 -- Fails in his support for our Constitution...

polifrog


Gun Issues

Date	Bill Title	Vote	Outcome
09/17/2008	Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban HR 6842	N	Bill Passed - House (266 - 152)
09/26/2006	Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives HR 5092	N	Bill Passed - House (277 - 131)
06/28/2006	Trigger Lock Amendment H AMDT 1156	N	Amendment Adopted - House (230 - 191)
10/20/2005	Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill S 397	N	Bill Passed - House (283 - 144)
04/09/2003	Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act HR 1036	N	Bill Passed - House (285 - 140)

But he has a spokesman in Chris Matthews...






We don't need to know any other aspects of our constitution Brad Miller does not support or would like to reinterpret.

And if you disagree with Brad Miller....

He doesn't care...


Fire Brad Miller in November.



out

Rep Bob Etherdige - The Founding Fathers Would Have No Interest in the Contitution Today...

polifrog



If Henry Ford were asked what he thought of our country today his answer would surly focus on the automotive industry. Likewise, Thomas Edison might give an answer that would center on technology.

But if you were asked what you thought the founding fathers would think of our country today, do you think they would be concerned with the constitutional evolution of the nation they crafted or with technological advancements.

Bob Etheridge seems to believe the Founding Fathers would be more interested in super bouncy balls:

WakeMyNC.com
When the floor was opened for questions, Rep. Etheridge was asked what he thought our founding fathers would think of our country today. Rep. Etheridge replied, "All in all, I think they would be amazed and awful proud of the technological advancements we've made, the opportunities we have, and where we're headed."

The Constitution could not be further from this man's mind even on constitution day.



out

Rep Brad Miller's Moral Relativism vs. Bill Randall and The Positive Influence of Principles on Governance....

polifrog



Bill Randall has mounted a campaign based on principles stemming from religion, the Constitution, and morality.

Frequently the preacher within Bill Randall emerges on the campaign trail when referencing The Ten Commandments. Just as often his respect for the words within the Constitution as they are written, as well as the ideals enshrined within those words, become vivid talking points for Randall. The Randall Campaign has embraced these two and produced an appealing morality all too often absent in modern politics. As important as the morality though, is the fact that they are principles, a yard stick, by which one can measure Bill Randall's actions against and if elected, his political leadership.

The positive results of this were on display during the primaries between Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. Although, Reeves and Randall agreed on much, there were a handful of points on which they parted.

One of these was the sudden and unfortunate BP disaster in the Gulf. Prior to the BP gusher Randall and Reeves were indistinguishable from one another on the topic of oil drilling. Drill here, drill now. That ended with the threat of oil inundating the NC coast. Bernie Reeves' position conveniently shifted from pro drilling to no drilling. Bill Randall, on the other hand, stuck to principle; continued his pro drilling stance and despite his muddled government/BP collusion press conference won the primaries.

That is not to say Bill Randall's pro drilling stance won the primaries for him, but it is to say that the episode helped to define Randall as a man of principle who, when confronted with a politically expedient choice, chose principle. Many conservative voters battered with the disappointment that was the listless conservative congress under the first 6 years of Bush found Bill Randall's reliance on principle refreshing. Conversely, Bernie Reeves seemed imbued with the odor of the stale unprincipled conservatism of the Bush years.

In truth, Bernie Reeves got caught on the wrong side of Conservative Party history. The Conservative Party is being rewritten before all our eyes with something more powerful than Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, but Reeves missed it. The party is being reformulated through an injection of Tea Party morality based on fundamental principals that candidates are expected to govern by. Where the Contract With America had a half-life (it came to an end when its to-do list was completed), Tea Party morality is as permanent as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is in its essence a repudiation of moral relativism seeping into the Conservative Party and gives voters that essential yardstick by which to judge a politician's performance. This will prove more effective than Newt's Contract With America.

And this is one of Brad Miller's primary difficulties come this November 2. This election comes at a time when Americans are coming to the conclusion that they elected an illusion to the presidency and in return they received disillusion. Currently many Americans question their president's religion. They question... who is this man? National politics is normally just background when electing representatives. Not this year.

When North Carolinians go to the polls this November, will they be comfortable with a moral relativist like Brad Miller? He is a man who believes, on the one hand, that a woman's right to choose supersedes her child's right to live and her right to choose extends to the moments before her child's birth, while, on the other hand, he supports removing all our health-care choices through ObamaCare. The conflict does not stop there; Brad Miller claims to be guided by lessons learned from his church. Clearly Brad Miller must separate the act of governance from his biblical guidance, and if that is so he is not guided by Christian belief.

Not only is Brad Miller not guided by biblical teachings, but he does not seem to rely on Constitutional text either. Where does he find the Constitutional right to force anyone to purchase anything through ObamaCare? Does he not see that ObamaCare conflicts with the tenth amendment? How does he divine a right of privacy that allows a woman to choose to kill her own child, while at the very same time he ignores the obvious wording of the second amendment? Where does he find a limitation on free political speech through incorporation? None of these interpretations are in our Constitution.

Yet these interpretations of our Constitution are no different than the those that allowed the atrocity of slavery to exist within America. Politicians like Brad Miller who are willing to interpret Constitutional "rights" such as infanticide in and out of existence are worse than their slave rationalizing brethren. At least slaves got life.

Brad Miller can point to neither The Ten Commandments nor can he point to The Constitution as a moral anchors. Brad Miller has no principles; he has no morality by which he can be judged. And when the North Carolina electorate visits the polls, will they be keen to reelect a politician (Brad Miller) who has no moral yardstick by which to gauge his performance?

No. North Carolina is ready for a political cleansing.




out

Bill Randall Believes in the Whole Constitution -- Rep Brad Miller, Not So Much

polifrog


Brad Miller has a poor record when it comes to supporting our Constitution and when it comes to the First, Second and Tenth Amendments his record is abysmal.

To comply with the Supreme Court Heller decision congressional members drafted HR-6842. Brad Miller not only had the chance to comply with the Supreme Court but he had a chance to prove that he supported a person's inalienable rite to bear arms. He could not and his vote reflected that immorality. Brad Miller's vote exposed his desire to perch himself above He (God) from which the rite to bear arms flows and remove such rite from individuals residing within DC. Project Vote Smart described the bill this way:

Vote to pass a bill that repeals regulations relating to the possession and sale of firearms in Washington, D.C., so as to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of The District of Columbia v. Heller.

The bill passed without Brad Miller's help.

Through his rejection of another bill, Brad Miller exposed his zeal to damage the gun industry within the US. in another attempt to whittle away at the individual rite to bear arms by attacking the source of firearms. Brad Miller voted down a bill to protect gun manufactures from frivolous law suits. The bill was described by Project Vote Smart this way:

Vote to pass a bill that provides liability protection for manufacturers, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition products, as well as their trade associations, for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse.

This bill also passed without Brad Miller's support.

Brad Miller views the Constitution as a malleable creation and as such the removal of the Second Amendment from the Constitution would suit Brad Miller just fine. If not the removal, the relegation to the Tenth Amendment status of the Second Amendment would, it seems, substitute adequately for Brad Miller.

Not only is the Second Amendment under fire from Brad Miller, The First Amendment is also currently under attack from Brad Miller in the form of limiting free political speech. Evidence of this can be found in his support for The Disclose Bill. Project Vote Smart describes The Disclose Bill this way:

Vote to pass a bill that establishes new disclosure requirements for political advertisements and other regulations for the financing of campaigns and political advertisements.

In practice under this bill, if two individuals were to form a corporation through which to engage in political free speech, their speech would no longer be free. It would be regulated and even stifled prior to an election.

Polifrog wonders what other portions of the Constitution would be stricken from history if left to Brad Miller.

Brad Miller, Not your parent's Democrat.


Now for the fun...








out