Ammo For Sale

« « The friendly skies | Home | Holder on contempt » »

In Rand Paul news

A look at how he delays and stops legislation with riders. He could just place a secret hold on every bill that comes through.

Says Obamacare still unconstitutional.

9 Responses to “In Rand Paul news”

  1. Social Media Sebastian Says:

    Well, five people whose votes actually mattered (and who weren’t absent that day in civics class as he apparently was) disagree. Ah well.

    As long as he’s sticking it to the TSA, that’s all I care about in re: him.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    Anyone who thinks his comment indicates he doesn’t understand the system is deluded or intentionally misrepresenting his statement. I mean, it’s not like the court’s ever upheld an unconstitutional law.

  3. Sebastian not the blogger Says:

    Obviously its a semantic quibble, but yes, that kinda is the definition of “constitutional” (to wit, what the SCOTUS says it is).

    We get what his point is, but he kinda walked into a door on this one.

  4. that guy Says:

    On June 25th 2008 DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was completely constitutional. But the next day (parts of) it became unconstitutional. Right?

  5. Social Media Sebastian Says:

    If that’s not the SCOTUS’s job…then what exactly is it that you think they do? I would point you to Art III.

    Unconstitutional in that case is shorthand for “had elements not able to pass constitutional muster upon review”. Constitutional in the case above is shorthand for “not yet subjected to judicial review”.

    When you stop using shorthand, it’s easier to see what you mean. But I’m all for hearing your definition of “constitutional” that doesn’t include things subjected to judicial review and found to pass muster.

    Does the court make mistakes? Sure–so bring another case and see if you can get them to rule the other way. Until you do, you’ll need to pick another word I’d think.

  6. that guy Says:

    I would be happy to say. “assumed constitutional” and “ruled unconstitutional” respectively. In fact I will and I do.

  7. tgirsch Says:

    There’s this weird notion that constitutional vs. unconstitutional is some sort of easy-to-discern, objective trait, but that’s simply not the case. If it were, we wouldn’t need a SCOTUS at all.

    Whether or not something is “constitutional” is almost always going to depend on many factors, not the least of which being one’s view of how the constitution ought to be interpreted. That our current SCOTUS justices have differing views on this is itself directly in keeping with the framers, who themselves had differing views on it.

    The constitution was and is a compromise document, intentionally laden with ambiguous language that different factions hoped would be interpreted in their preferred way. Anybody who pretends that determining constitutionality in all but the most cut-and-dry of cases is deluded.

  8. Cormac Says:

    I wonder what the odds are that Rand will be picked as Mitten’s running mate…?

    Can you imagine what he would do as President of the Senate?
    He might even be willing to stick his neck out to keep the big guy in check.

    Not to mention the votes this would help Romney bring in (Rubio is a joke, Obama’s going to take the hispanic vote).

  9. A Critic Says:

    “Obviously its a semantic quibble, but yes, that kinda is the definition of “constitutional” (to wit, what the SCOTUS says it is).”

    That’s a load of BS. Constitutional means in accordance with the Constitution.

    I reviewed the SCOTUS decision and have ruled it to be null and void, as is the PPACA. Both are unconstitutional and are open conspiracies to violate the rights of all Americans, a violation of Title 18 Section 242. People will die under the PPACA due to the violation of their rights. This will make passing and enforcing the PPACA a capital crime.