Her own words
This is not from the Onion.
“We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Wow.
14 Responses to “Her own words”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 20th, 2006 at 10:42 am
“We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
OK that tears it.
We have officially entered a bizaro dimension.
Pelosi is worried about protecting the Constitution…. yeah, ok, whatever.
:-p
July 20th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Heh, I didn’t quite get it until I, thank God, actually read the article.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I thought it was pretty ironic myself.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:27 am
I have to say, I’m not sure what your point is, Uncle.
She voted against the bill, thinks it’s bad for the Constitution, and is confident the effort will utimately fail. Not sure where the problem is.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Although the constitution lets congress create courts inferior to the supremes, I’m finding it hard to understand how those congress-critters think they can dictate to the supreme court exactly what its jurisdiction is.
It would be like the supremes, in striking down an unconstitutional law, deciding to fine the president 1 million dollars for every unconstitutional law that the president signed off on.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Err, that’s not me. that’s gunner.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am
I’m not sure how to do it, but it would be great if you could include the author in you RSS feed so I can tell who wrote what from my feed aggravator.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
SM, it does for me.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
looks like I need to get out more and try a few different feed aggravators.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Myself:
I may have made a mistake here. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
So this does not seem to be an “all-out assault on the Constitution” like Minority Leader Pelosi says, but merely, congress doing what it’s empowered to. Wow, how often does that happen?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I agree that the bill is constitutional – jurisdiction stripping laws almost always are – but I don’t think Pelosi’s comment is that far off the mark. In effect, “we” are attempting to use one part of the Constitution to shield “ourselves” from judicial review over an alleged vioaltion of another. Congressman Rohrabacher’s objection strikes me as spot-on:
Granted, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court being much good on guns anyway, but you never know. The point is, if you have a problem with a court ruling (as I do in the Pledge case), jurisdiction-stripping is a cure worse than the disease.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
BH, I suspect Gunner’s problem is not with Pelosi’s position on the merits, but with her use of the smarmy “we,” where the appropriate pronoun would have been “they” (or, if you prefer, “those bastards”).
July 20th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Xrlq Says:
Hmm, yea if I remember correctly, those supremes gave themselves the right to declare laws unconstitutional. This has rough analogies like Congress delegating regulatory power to the FDA or the president “making law” via executive orders.
Exercising this congressional power is a bit like a “judicial nuclear option”.
It seems like a bunch of things were decided via “gentleman’s agreements” (bastard’s agreements?) and stayed that way because of tradition. But it’s much better if you actually amend the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Of course that’s more like real work, ’tis far easer to pass non-binding resolutions supporting Mother’s Day or have dog-and-pony show congressional hearings on the dangers of the media darling of the week.
Every once in a while, however, someone figures out something like the fact that there’s not a fixed number of Supreme Court Justices and then that clever person tries to get his or her agenda implemented by exploiting this fact (don’t mention the L word here at SayUncle). FDR tried stacking the supreme deck after a few rulings messed with his New Deal.
Pelosi suddenly worrying about the constitutionality of an issue is amusing, but I suppose I could look at every congress-critter’s voting record, and assuming I was head of a proper tribunal, find enough violations of their oath’s of office to hang probably the whole lot of them.
July 20th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Bingo. I find her acting like this “attack” on the constitution is wrong when her own actions show her disdain in it for the most part. Also it was a good conversation starter.