-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Liberalism’s Frail Constitution
While pretending to revere it as an important document that is just too inscrutable to limit government, liberals let slip what they really think about the Constitution.
When the new Republican majority in the House decided to kick off the legislative session by reading the Constitution, the liberal reaction was instructive. Some accused Republicans of “hijacking” a shared national document for narrow partisan purposes. A few agreed with syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne: “There is nothing wrong with reading our Constitution as part of the new Congress’ debut. It’s a good Constitution.”
But most liberals treated the sight of congressmen reading aloud from the Constitution — which they take an oath to uphold — as a bizarre spectacle, an oddity somewhere between an exotic tribal ritual and a deviant sex act. Perhaps pairing the Constitution-reading with deviant sex acts would have increased liberal approval.
Or perhaps not. In a post titled “The Cult of the Constitution,” Time’s Alex Altman complained that “the fetishizing of the Constitution is unsettling.” He was joined by Michael Lind, who rehashed the usual smears of those who disagree with liberals as being the “political heirs of the Confederates and the segregationist Dixiecrats” in a piece titled bluntly, “Let’s stop pretending the Constitution is sacred.”
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick repeated the argument that constitutionalism is some kind “fetish,” saying that when it comes to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Tea Party activists should be careful what they wish for: “The Framers were no more interested in binding future Americans to a set of divinely inspired commandments than any of us would wish to be bound by them.”
The Nation’s John Nichols pointed to some stumbling and fumbling by congressional Constitution-readers, including text that was left out of the public reading. Nichols writes that the latter includes “the section that bars the establishment of monarchies and other forms of dictatorship.” At your next local “Tea Partisan” rally, to borrow Nichols’ phrase, ask how many people in attendance are seeking to create state-level monarchies, much less actual dictatorships.
Even Dionne charges that the Tea Party “has treated the nation’s great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.” He continued, “An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.”
Nearly all this commentary misses the point. The argument isn’t that the Constitution is perfect or the equivalent of Scripture. It was, as liberals are fond of pointing out, a document written and ratified through a political process, the product of compromises between Framers with different opinions on some important questions, much like any other document that could be devised through such a process.
The argument is that the Constitution is the law. The federal government must obey the Constitution because constitutional government is, in the American Republic, the only form of lawful government. Which brings up the next point: the Constitution may not be an exhaustive list of policy prescriptions that the Framers would have viewed as correct, but it is an exhaustive list of the powers of the federal government.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Madison penned these words to address the concerns of those who felt the Constitution authorized too powerful a central government. But there was no real disagreement that by ratifying the Constitution, the American people were delegating the powers enumerated therein to the new federal government.
That act of delegation, and not the supposed clairvoyance of the Founding Fathers (who were nevertheless incontrovertibly several cuts above today’s political class), is why the Constitution is binding. All the powers the federal government has it gets from the people, through a constitutional process requiring more consensus than elections every two years. Just as the rights of the people aren’t dependent on the changing will of fluctuating majorities and pluralities, the powers of government do not change based on the desires of whichever party temporarily runs Washington.
It is precisely that understanding of the Constitution that has been under assault since at least the New Deal. Many of the flaws that existed in the original Constitution were fixed through the amendment process allowed by the Constitution itself. That is the constitutionally legitimate process by which liberals can expand the powers of the federal government to include things like national health insurance or Washington-owned automobile manufacturers.
But that requires more than simply seizing a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a few short months. It necessitates the same kind of national consensus that led to the ratification of the Constitution — and all of its amendments — in the first place. Therefore it is much easier to pretend that the Constitution is an infinitely elastic document and appoint judges who will go along with this folly.
The very people who scream the loudest about the Constitution being treated like Scripture are those who wish to treat the Constitution the way Unitarians treat Scripture. Those who are quickest to suggest that fidelity to the Constitution suggests that the Founding Fathers were perfect are the first to tout their own political genius, by saying, for example, that having government programs that aren’t authorized by the Constitution is no different than having technology that didn’t exist when George Washington was president.
The powers they claim are being posthumously vested in the Founding Fathers are the very powers they want for themselves. So the Republicans, who have their own constitutional blind spots, have at least performed this valuable service: they have revealed the contempt for the Constitution felt by those who have long preferred to venerate it as a “living document.” It turns out their living document is really a dead letter.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/10/liberalisms-frail-constitution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 1.10.11 @ 6:37AM
The Constitution outlawed slavery and gave women the right to vote. By saying the Constitution is outdated, liberals are saying slavery should not be outlawed and women should not be allowed to vote. You can't cherry pick the parts you like and disregard the parts you don't.
mames| 1.10.11 @ 9:58AM
Right on. The amendment process is a living process establish by the Founders to adapt to real necessary changes agreed upon by the vast majority after a complete, thoughtful and debated vetting process. Marxists prefer change by judicial fiat. They detest a republic and any limitation on government which makes them true traitors to our government and constitutional process.
Gregg| 1.10.11 @ 11:32AM
Small nitpick:
The Constitution did NOT give women the right to vote. It said that THE right (which all of us have), can not be abridged by gender.
PolishKnight| 1.10.11 @ 2:00PM
Saavy observation, Gregg, but may I take it one step further?
The women's vote (it's just easier to refer to it in that shorthand) was achieved at the STATE level before the Constitutional amendment was ratified. Many students, including myself, are taught that the women's vote went down like this: A bunch of women bravely marched upon Washington and their state capitals until those bad, evil men trembled in fear and passed the 19th amendment.
Er, no. What happened was that the women's vote was passed at the state level and a precedent set which then made it somewhat easy to get passed at the federal level. It was a grassroots movement much like... the Tea Party!
At the time, opponents to the women's vote predicted that it would result in women becoming materialistic and the destruction of families and children winding up being neglected. Thank heavens, er, Thank Constitution they were wrong!
Thor| 1.12.11 @ 11:02AM
Polish Knight said:
At the time, opponents to the women's vote predicted that it would result in women becoming materialistic and the destruction of families and children winding up being neglected. Thank heavens, er, Thank Constitution they were wrong!
Please explain how with a 40% illegitimacy rate and an on going marriage strike because women are perceived as being too selfish and materialistic that the opponents to women's suffrage were wrong? I know you from MND and I expect more from you than this kind of intellectual fluff.
JohnPatrick| 1.13.11 @ 12:50PM
The illegitimacy rate is directly related to payments for birthing children (welfare). Pay women to birth a child and pay them even more each month of the child's life and you can expect them to do just that. Great Society! Huh?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.11 @ 6:44AM
Here's a liberal treatise on the Constitution straight from the party leader's mouth. This is from an Obama radio interview in 2001. Notice the reference to redistribution of wealth by the Supreme Court and that and that he looks at the Constitution as a constraint and a set of negative liberties.
Obama quote:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Eric Cartman| 1.10.11 @ 9:24AM
As all effeminate Liberal Aholes say: Ewwww! Icky Constitution! Get it out of here! Eewwww! It doesn't have anal sex with gerbils in it! Ewwww!
UpChuck.Liberals| 1.11.11 @ 12:28AM
I believe that's in the Quran.
Iron Cowboy| 1.10.11 @ 10:19AM
@ Bill H O’Stalan,
You’ve not read the US Constitution, or you did not understand what you read I see… The USC did not outlaw slavery! The Amendment only CHANGED who can own slaves and under what conditions slave ownership is permissible!
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
So all the amendment did was eliminate PRIVATE ownership of slaves and change that to GOVERNMENT ownership of slaves, and change the terms of entry into slavery or involuntary servitude!
All the government needs to do is convict you of some kind of a “”Crime”” and then you can be a government owned slave.
Stormzeye| 1.10.11 @ 10:43AM
Cowboy up, man...you're wrong! The Government is not permitted to enslave people. It is, after lawful conviction with due process guarantees, lawfully permitted to exact involuntary servitude from those convicted. Slavery would allow the government to have complete control over the body (life and death) of an inmate. Involuntary servitude does not rise to that level of domination.
USClady| 1.13.11 @ 10:34PM
Being a slave to someone or a government comes in different forms.
Every one of us has over the past 100 yrs or so, as the gov. gets further and further away from or Founding Doucments, becomes enslaved to our gov. Everytime we take a welfare check, unemployment check, food stamps, Social Security, healthcare, govermnet loans, pay taxes even on the air we breath, etc. we must live the way the gov. tells us to live. All social, entitlement programs do is enslave the masses. AND that make the government the Slave Master!!!
BTW, the very first slave owner was a BLACK man and his slave (or actually indentured servent) was a WHITE man. But back in the day, both black and white land owners had slaves/indentured servents. That type of 'partnership' lasted until the democratic north and democrats in the south realized they could exploit the black man for political gains, take away his property and his rights as a free man and make him a slave to the white man! Pretty much like they do today in the ghettos and slums of this country. The democraticly controlled cities have higher black unemployment, school drop out rate, unwed pregnancies, welfare recipients, etc. Thus keeping them slaves to the party that feeds them!
JohnPatrick| 1.13.11 @ 12:58PM
I believe slaves were given 3/5 of a vote on purpose in order to open the door in the South, and yet appease the slave owners or most southerners. After which the slaves could gradually and ultimately become a free people (Emancipation).
Appleby| 1.10.11 @ 6:59AM
When Daddy was attending school, the students in his small farming community memorized the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other important documents; they would not have had to read it, and they could also have explained it.
And dont tell me that a generation that can remember an entire football playbook or all 600 Pokemon characters and their attributes could not be taught to do this too.
USClady| 1.13.11 @ 10:44PM
I read and learned the Constitution, Dec. of Indep. Federalist Papers, Emancipation Proc. etc. from elementary school thru high school. I remember in 9th grade my teacher asked me a question about the Constitution and my reply which was smart-alec, was "I don't see why I need to know what happened more than 100 yrs. ago." Well that remark got me a punshiment of writing the entire Constitution 50 times. I have alot invested in my Constitution. I'll will not give it up without a fight!
Laura | 1.14.11 @ 12:22PM
@Appleby: Right on!
Clint| 1.10.11 @ 7:02AM
The Liberal Rewriters of History are all atwitter because those Bad Tea Party Rebels wanted The Constitution of The United States Read Out Loud, of all things & Inside The Very Congress Itself.
Captain Renault, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that Constitution Reading is going on in here! "
Intelligent Design| 1.10.11 @ 7:26AM
The Constitution should be read aloud to begin every day in the House, followed by hearings to discuss all the legislation on the books which is unconstitutional, such as the Social Security Act. Congress should repair the damage done over the past several decades.
Gary| 1.10.11 @ 8:13AM
When Pelosi replied, “Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?” to that reporter’s question about Obamacare being Constitutional he should have followed up with another question: “Madam Speaker, when you took your oath of office were you kidding?”
Vern Crisler| 1.10.11 @ 8:30AM
Contempt for the US Constitution began long before the New Deal. It started with the secessionists, then was picked up by the Progressives. The idea of a fixed, "sacred" Constitution is anathema to those who adopted political Darwinism, where change is the ultimate principle of governance.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 10:48AM
More nonsense from Vern. What part of delegate don't you get? If a power is delegated, it is always in the power of the delegator to determine that the delegatee is not handling the power correctly and re-assume that power.
To say that a state could not withdraw from the Union without the permission of others is say that state belongs to the other states. It would then force that state to always be at the mercy of a majority no matter what wrong they do, or how much they violate the agreement.
You also show how much contempt you have for the truths given in the Declaration of Independence, in particular the following....deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
The above is clear, no one group of people can be forced to remain in a union, or under a government that they determine for themselves is not pursuing their best interests.
Even were the US constitution to have had some such clause making withdrawal dependent on other states, it would have been invalid, as the D of I shows. The forming of the Union itself under the US constitution was an act of secession, as without the approval of all 13 states...ALL 13 STATES!, there could be no change...Article 13 of the A of C.."Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. "
In short your spewage is nonsense.
Wxcynic| 1.10.11 @ 12:53PM
The public land act of 1794 contained specific language which required new states to resolve never to secede as the first condition of statehood. No exceptions.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 1:13PM
Hmm, and we had the Alien and Sedition acts in 1798. Meaning what? That an act by the congress can override the authority it acts under? As I said above, even were there a clause in the US constitution forbidding withdrawal it would be invalid, but you mention some mere act, and how many acts have been passed in this country which violate the US constitution?
Wxcynic| 1.10.11 @ 1:49PM
This was the foundation document that gave us property, new states, government land, land for serving in the continental army, a solution to the the war debt, and later was amended to include homesteading. Not small things. Even a civil war was fought over it. BTW, not even listed in the top 100 important documents in our nation's founding. Sad. This act implemented "American Exceptialism" before the phrase was even coined. Coupled with the constitution, it made us who we are as a nation.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 1:23PM
BTW, I'm unaware of this Public Land Act of 1794. It wouldn't make a difference, but I would still like to see it.
Wxcynic| 1.10.11 @ 2:09PM
Dry reading, but I found it through Library of Congress, American Memory section . I misstated, 1784 vice 1794.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 3:03PM
Ok, so it's before the ratification of the US constitution. As stated above the Articles of Confederation precluded the manner in which the US constitution was enacted, and yet it was. The US constitution didn't even bother with such a thing as perpetual union and why indeed when it was framed and made in obvious refutal of such a thing.
Vern Crisler| 1.10.11 @ 10:14PM
Ratification of the Constitution was, as Madison said, in toto and forever. No conditional ratification allowed:
"I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this
principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other
States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness. This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection."
(Letter of James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, dated July 20, 1789.)
Vern Crisler| 1.10.11 @ 8:51PM
Sorry, don't have time to respond to Johnny Reb nonsense. I've already done that here:
http://vernerable.wordpress.co.....federates/
Richard Baker| 1.10.11 @ 8:43AM
These folks absolutely HATE the Constitution because it puts restraints upon prospective tyrants and despots no matter what the political persuasion. It is the most profound political document in history. Its writers truly understood the nature of man.
Intelligent Design| 1.10.11 @ 11:25AM
And BTW, the Left and Islam are on the same page. The goal of mainstream Muslims is to destroy the Constitution. Congress should identify Islam as a subversive organization. Islam is about the merger of "church" and state to form a dictatorship where there is no religious freedom and the Bill of Rights does not exist. The book to read is The Grand Jihad, by Andrew McCarthy, a former Justice Department prosecutor.
JohnPatrick| 1.13.11 @ 1:10PM
Wholeheartedly agree, and progressivism is undermining our Union in the same fashion as a cancer.
DeesBull| 1.10.11 @ 12:35PM
Amen. Glad to see someone finally put the words down about the nature of man. I believe the founders wrote the constitution with human nature in mind. They knew human nature doesn't change. Man is still trying to get away with doing the same old stuff to their fellow man since the beginning of time. The problem is that the ones trying to get rid of the constitution is that they don't want to admit to themselves that they are capable of perpetrating the same old evil upon their neighbors.
PolishKnight| 1.10.11 @ 2:10PM
Have you ever noticed, Richard, at the outrage expressed by leftists against their opponents as using government "fascism?" If you want to watch their nostrils flare, bring up the war in Iraq!
"How DARE GW get into an ILLEGAL war and spend my tax money!" they shriek. I then laugh and laugh and they get all hushed because they are confused that I don't either get argumentative or agree with them (the two responses they are expecting) and ask them: "If government power is to great, how can it be wrong when GW utilizes it? Isn't government a good thing? Are you saying that your agenda puts yourself just one election away from tyranny?"
They simply don't think it through. They want to get their hands on power without wondering what the consequences will be. It never occurs to them that just because they vote for some tyrant who flatters them, that they might, gasp, break their promise!
So when I laugh at them shrieking about the evils of corporate America I say to them: "Gotta love that big government corporate welfare! The Constitution is so flexible it must be ok!"
They're a bunch of selfish, monstrous children with a vote with a playground mentality: "I'm in the cool group! Nyah nyah nyah!"
Hmmm, all that said, it begs the question why we have this absolute right to a vote. The Constitution limited not only women but also non-land owners from voting. While owning land implies that that the nobility will have a disproportionate right to vote, it does make sense to ask if there should be limitations set at the state level. These people should not be allowed to vote: Government workers (conflict of interest) and welfare recipients.
Joe S.| 1.11.11 @ 2:33PM
Landowners were not "nobility". Farmers, merchants, etc. owned land. What the requirement to be a landowner did, though, was ensure that those who paid the bills (taxes) had a say over what government programs existed. Under that type of constraint, we probably wouldn't have unlimited welfare and government.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.10.11 @ 8:47AM
Folks,
Please try to remember one single thing. Our Founding documents were the compact...the overarching agreement by which we the people consented to be governed.
Thank you
ricard ryan| 1.10.11 @ 8:48AM
Madison's comments about the limited powers of the federal government sum it up pretty well. Our founders had their disagreements, but limited government, especially at the federal level, was a central theme of their way of thinking. I don't waste much time arguing specific policy points with non-conservatives, but I always hammer this point home whenever possible: centralized authority of the type we have seen in the past 50 years eats away at our freedom and is a lousy way to govern. It just makes sense to give more power to the states and let them solve their own problems. Conservative states can then DEMONSTRATE the superiority of their policies, and the liberal states (California) of the country can show us the results of left wing leadership.
Stormzeye| 1.10.11 @ 11:15AM
You are correct Ricard. As Justice Brandeis said "states are the laboratories of democracy". I think the great debate over the course of the next generation will once again be "states rights" vs. a strong central government. Unfortunately, slavery gave the fight for "states rights" a bad name but Obama's policies have revived the legitimacy of that debate. He's the best thing to happen to the conservative movement since Goldwater/Reagan.
richard ryan| 1.10.11 @ 11:46AM
I agree. Had McCain been elected, it would have simply delayed the REAL changes we need in this country. Carter hurt this country quite a bit, but by giving us Reagan things turned out OK overall. Sadly, the electorate in this country is largely ignorant of history's lessons. They need to be shown, time and time again, that the Left's policies only bring pain and weakness.
Margie| 1.10.11 @ 2:02PM
Stormzeyze,
That is a very interesting perspective, which I like, and think is true about states rights vs. a strong central gov. becoming the great debate of the future generation. Though I think it's certainly percolating right now.
In the discussions that are fought here at AmSpec on the subject bet. the Confederates and the Union and the Civil war, both sides make such compelling arguments. In your comment, it made me see something in favor of the Confederate side, but I must always come to the conclusion that Lincoln did what he thought was right, and God will be the Judge.
Both sides fought their consciences.. and are in His Hands.
ohiojb| 1.10.11 @ 8:58AM
Everyday is the right day to celebrate the Constitution, the Founding, and the flag. Those who disagree reveal their intentions for our republic.
Anthony| 1.10.11 @ 9:05AM
It's clear that when the Constitution was being read on the floor of the House last week, the Ds were fast asleep.
Now it the wake of the Arizona shootings, in which the Ds and the MSM are racing to place blame (and guess who? Sarah Palin) a D Congressman now wishes to make it a federal crime to engage in "inflammatory" speech.
Ww knew these next two years were going to be tough, we just didn't think it would come this quick, but quick it has.
We are in for a very rocky road.
mames| 1.10.11 @ 10:01AM
Their knee jerk reaction to the shooting SHOULD embarrass them since the murder was a left wing nut job out of the Jane Fonda handbook.
canuckistani| 1.10.11 @ 12:09PM
....with a gun purchased without a background check and a 31-shot clip.
Explain how this "2nd amendment remedy" will help our nation?
Maybe, just maybe, the country needs to be taught civility and decency in our discourse.
When a sheriff who lives this Arizona BS everyday is slammed for calling out the obvious, we have truly lost our way.
DeesBull| 1.10.11 @ 12:41PM
And yet you show your own 'civility and decency' by saying the sheriff is correct in blaming Sarah Palin? I believe that 'you' have lost 'your' way....
JKS| 1.10.11 @ 12:52PM
Name a gun control law that has worked...
Nick| 1.10.11 @ 1:08PM
Canuckistani,
"....with a gun purchased without a background check and a 31-shot clip."
Why do you bleeding heart liberals fixate on the number of rounds a firearm can hold?
This murderous scumbag could've made a pipe-bomb with materials purchased at his local hardware store, and killed more people.
Do we now need background checks when we buy plumbing supplies?
JLKrueger| 1.10.11 @ 3:44PM
"31-shot clip"
Might want to learn the correct nomenclature if you are going to whine about it.
"When a sheriff who lives this Arizona BS everyday is slammed for calling out the obvious, we have truly lost our way."
He's being called out for trying to score political points. At the time he made his initial comments, there was no evidence whatsoever of any link between the shooter and ANY political point of view. A sheriff speaking in the discharge of his duties should comment only on the known facts of the incident and not inject personal political bias. His subsequent comments haven't been much better.
victor| 1.10.11 @ 1:50PM
Yes, and let us not forget that the UnaBomber was an acolyte of The Right Rev, Albert R. Gore of the First Church of Global Warming.
He had a copy of Earth in the Balance in his shrine to
Gaia and AlGasbag.
Anthony| 1.10.11 @ 10:10AM
The left will always identify who and what their motivations are in any situation such as this.
In this instance, the immediate reaction from the Ds and the left was censorship and restrictions of liberties.
Funny, this from the sclerotic leaders of the leftist D party who several decades ago were shouting "Question Authority". What pathetic hypocrites they are.
Louis Jenkins| 1.10.11 @ 10:28AM
That was Hillary, I think. But it is okay when the left questions authority, not the right, after all, they have to pass bills to find out what is in them. We are in an uphill fight, and reading the Constitution outloud, by their accounts, is wrong. Why? They no longer follow that document.
Richard Baker| 1.10.11 @ 10:18AM
Anthony:
Graduated High School in 1970. Then and now I thought so much of the Question Authority nonsense and the anti-war movement were just street theater. Playing a game, if you will.
Anthony| 1.10.11 @ 11:04AM
Richard, you're right, much of it was, with those on the fringe just showing how hip they were. Bourgeois revoluntionaires they were, safe and sound in the safety of their parents money. However, with the leaders, like Ayers and Hayden, there was a nihilistic element of "let's just blow the whole thing up and see what happens".
Of course, now that they are in power, the perverbial shoe is on the other foot.
As more and more is revealed about this shooter, even if established that he is a left-wing nut job, the left and its forces will continue to push their agenda. They will not let this opportunity slip by.
As bad as these shootings were, it really doesn't take much to expose the rawness that exists in our society today. Something is going to have to give, I just don't know who and what will be doing the giving.
Petronius| 1.10.11 @ 10:21AM
If this Congress cannot bring Constitutional limits to bear upon our presently dictatorial Executive branch and the self serving Judiciary, this Country is finished. The ruling class will continue to concentrate power and crush all opposition, while the remainder of the populace will remain serfs. All government officials who flout and break their Constitutional Oaths must be indicted, prosecuted, defrocked, disbarred, and driven from office and the Liberties that they have taken from us restored.
Nick| 1.10.11 @ 10:45AM
Excellent article Mr. Antle.
Just excellent.
Sea_Hunter| 1.10.11 @ 10:46AM
The Constitution is not just a document to formalize our government, it is a social contract between those who would govern and those who would be governed. As with any contract it takes both parties to amend it. The courts, the liberals, the progressives, et alla, have totally ignored this fact. The courts have chosen to amend the constitution on their own without consent of the governed. Those whom would govern have enjoyed this trend as it nearly always favors them.
We will not have a limited government until we can take control of our Federal Courts and force the understanding that the Social Contract of the Constitution must not be changed except in the manner in which the contract allows.
The Constitution is no more a "living document" than is a contract between a company and a supplier. No court would allow a change of a contract between a company and its' supplier without an agreement between both parties. It is perhaps unfortunate that our court system allows just such a thing without the least hint of consent between both parties when it comes to the Constitution.
There is a solution to this problem. The States should be allowed to nullify any decision of the Courts. That is, if two thirds of the States are in opposition to a ruling of the Supream Court, then the States may nullify the ruling and replace it by one of their own. This would take a Constitutional admenment, but it is a change worth our consideration. I doubt though that any of the governing class would allow this to happen. As I said, the courts are more often than not in favor of a strong central government, rather than the constrained government outlined in the Constitution.
LiveFreeOrDie| 1.10.11 @ 11:51AM
"There is a solution to this problem. The States should be allowed to nullify any decision of the Courts. "
This idea already exists, it's called congress. How's that been working for us?
Sea_Hunter| 1.10.11 @ 12:38PM
Common good manners forbids an approprate response to the question. Let me just say, it's long past time for Congress to end its' anal cranal inversion.
Traveller| 1.13.11 @ 12:31PM
Technically, in the medical community, it is Rectal-Cranial Inversion...Either way we got your message!!!
Joe Oliva| 1.10.11 @ 4:02PM
Try Thomas Woods' book, 'Nullification'. There is ample evidence that the states have in the past rejected federal actions as unconstitutional.
Imagine if Gov. Brewer told the Obama administration that its lack of performance in securing the border therefore means that the State of Arizona will do what it has to do to protect its citizens. What would the President do, call out the National Guard of Arizona to arrest Mrs. Brewer?
We need more state governors to stand up to the feds. Rick Perry should do as much with regards to the EPA rulings they are trying to force Texas to obey. Tell them to take a hike and go ahead and get the energy the country needs. Again, what would the administration do, call out the Texas National Guard to arrest Perry. I'd love to see that one.
Stormzeye| 1.10.11 @ 6:01PM
If a state, such as Arizona, did such a thing all the Federal government would have to do is federalize the state militia and put it under Washington's control as they did in the South during the states' attempts to nullify the Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress.
Nunya| 1.10.11 @ 1:00PM
Excellent post Hunter.
Vern Crisler| 1.10.11 @ 10:50PM
It would take three-fourths of the states to formally nullify any federal action.
Richard| 1.10.11 @ 11:51AM
The response of Pelosi to a reporter asking for the constitutional authority for her actions says it all:
"are you serious, are you serious?"
John| 1.10.11 @ 12:36PM
The left holds the Constitution as sacred, especially its penumbras and emanations, when it agrees with the leftist agenda. Otherwise it is, according to Representative Nadler, an "ancient screed that no one takes serious anymore," filled with, "quaint notions of men who died 200 years ago.” According to leftist scholars anything written over a hundred years ago is confusing.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 1:07PM
So am I to assume then that conservatives desire a return to strict constitutionality?
No military bases overseas? Not a power given under the US constitution.
No such thing as allies, as the US constitution speaks only of common defense, and repelling invasions?
No war on terrorism? It is a joke to have war on a concept, and of course there can be no end to such a war, as it only creates terrorists, not lessens them.
victor| 1.10.11 @ 1:40PM
So, what are we supposed to do?
Lock the windows and bar the doors and then hide under our collective beds?
Washington did not or could not imagine the United States as a superpower and so based his comments and thoughts of his country as one country out of many nations.
What would he have thought of this nation, say two hundred or even one hundred years after its founding?
Washington spoke in the context of a fledgling nation taking its first steps of independence on the world stage.
Unlike Cher, we cannot turn back time nor return to the thrilling days of yesteryear.
We cannot go back to the time of the founding of this nation.
We must deal with the world as it is now, but also using the thoughts and words of the Founding Fathers to guide us in our journey.
If there are things we should do to achieve that goal we should do them, but it will not happen overnight as we got to this point over a long period of time.
While I admire your love of and reverence for our founding documents as do I, I simply don't understand your desire to deal with the world as it is now by not dealing with it in its present state.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 2:57PM
And your point is? That the US constitution is irrelevant(that's my point, that conservatives only want adherence to the US constitution when it suits their concerns, but not at all times, so it's hypocrisy as far as I can see)? That it may be violated at any time if so considered expedient?
If the times truly have changed (which I don't believe..for instance the threat of Indian attacks at any time was much more real than attacks by terrorists)so much that more powers are needed, then the appropriate process is Article V.
Also, my reverence is not for the instrument, but of agreement, of honoring such agreements, and maintaining as just and right a process as possible to do so.
victor| 1.11.11 @ 2:29AM
Len:
"And your point is? That the US constitution is irrelevant"
When have I ever said that?
The Constitution is just as relevant today as it ever was. We just need to go back and follow the Founders' intent.
"If the times truly have changed (which I don't believe..for instance the threat of Indian attacks at any time was much more real"
You must be joking, right?
The Indians could only kill you one at a time, while the Islamists can kill thousands at one sitting.
"my reverence is not for the instrument, but of agreement,"
So as long as we agree to it, it doesn't matter what we're agreeing to?
We have to ratify it unanimously so that we may find out what it means?
JLKrueger| 1.10.11 @ 4:00PM
Actually, you may need to reread the Constitution.
Congress has the power to: "Make rules for the government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." (Article I, Section 8).
This would include stationing them overseas when necessary via the Executive branch power to establish treaties: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."(Article II, Section 2).
As the "war on terrorism" is in fact being conducted providing "for the common defence" it is well within the Founder's intent and Constitutional. You may quibble about the wording "war on terrorism", but not about whether it passes Constitutional muster.
As for creating more terrorists, that's an unproven assertion.
Len| 1.10.11 @ 5:04PM
Nah, no rereading necessary. Treaties have nothing to do with making allies for to engage in wars that have nothing to do with common defense. Nice try though, but your spin neglects the context, the understanding of those making the US constitution, and that understanding as best stated by George Washington, was not to involve ourselves in other nations wars.
The main purpose of treaties was commercial, and of course such a power is defined by other clauses of the US constitution, such as common defense, such as repelling invasions, such as the only mention of bases being within the states or territories of the US.
As for your claim that the war on terrorism is actually providing for common defense, that's so absurd, it would be laughable were it not for it's foolishness. What country is attacking us? Who has sent their army to our borders, their navies to our waters?
Let's be very clear, we attacked Iraq for their invasion of Kuwait, and set up resolutions with other countries that were actually acts of war, and then invaded Iraq again on the basis of WMDs (one of many reasons given actually), not because they had attacked us and you are claiming common defense?
As for creating terrorists, what do you think people whose country has been invaded, their cities destroyed, their countrymen victimized are going to do in reaction? Lay down and acknowledge the great US, or fight back? Let's not forget how the US has bullied other countries to accept how many weapons they may have, how they may run their country, the CIAs behind the scenes interference, etc. This is not going to build resentment? I think back to Israel, who as God's chosen nation was never told to go attack other nations because of their unrighteousness, but be a light on a hill, and this many of the founders echoed and hoped for in the US, that by being an example of freedom, others would emulate the US. Unfortunately man is corrupt and so the US uses force to intimidate others, and more and more we lose freedom here in the name of security.
Stormzeye| 1.10.11 @ 6:04PM
Len, What about Jefferson's naval battles with the Barbary Pirates? That was the opening shot in our undeclared war against terrorism.
Oldefarte| 1.10.11 @ 1:11PM
The left's views on the Constitution is signified by the very meaning of LIBERALISM [GENEROUS, NOT STRICT, FAVORING REFORM]. Liberal do not believe in the restrictions of laws, boundaries, constraints, etc. They are instead ARTISTS, and fovor an anything goes with one's imigination scenerio. In their world, there should be no restrictions on sexual activity, violence, verbage, ideas, etc. Therefore, they hate the Constitution!!!!
Margie| 1.10.11 @ 1:26PM
Yep, they're Liberal CON-ARTISTS!
Margie| 1.10.11 @ 1:25PM
The Left loves a "Living Constitution", in the same way they love a "Living Bible".
Interpret it any which way they like in order to suit their own morals.
Yet God's Truth marches on.
Margie| 1.10.11 @ 2:37PM
correction: something the Left will do till their dying day should have been omitted as I had rearranged my post.
Margie| 1.10.11 @ 2:33PM
Mr. Antle,
Wonderful article and I give you ad infinitum accolades!
And I just have to make this connection as it is just too priceless to ignore, and it is this:
In your saying,
"Those who are quickest to suggest that fidelity to the Constitution suggests that the Founding Fathers were perfect.."
Our resident Leftist lawyer, RCV recently told me that by my saying that the Bible is to be taken as the words of God, including the Apostle Paul's words, and that it ought to be adhered to accordingly~
that this indeed was me saying that the Apostle Paul was perfect, which makes me a blasphemer.
Because after all, if the words written in the Bible are indeed God-breathed through men that He chose to do so, then that means we must listen and obey.
And the Founding Fathers weren't perfect either but when ever is perfection a requirement to do the will of God, anyway? This country was part of God's plan, and he used these men to do His will.
We would do well to always recognize that!
Something the Left will fight doing to their dying day
Red Phillips | 1.12.11 @ 12:15PM
Margie, Jim Antle suggested that Republicans also have their own "constitutional blind spots." What do you think those might be? Could one of them be thinking the Constitution authorizes the American military to fight for freedom around the globe or whatever other interventionist euphemism you want to use?
Sid Vicious| 1.10.11 @ 2:45PM
Regressives have yet to explain how a piece of parchment can be "living"... but an unborn child cannot.
gary siebel| 1.10.11 @ 4:17PM
So it looks like we will be re-arguing the whole Vietnam Era fight, but under different banners and different issues, all just camouflage for the underlying battle that will continue until the day we die. Conservatives want to control how men think, liberals want to control how men act.
The only change in the last 40 years has been the complete loss of credibility by the commies (communism turns out to be aristocracy under a different name ("I am the sion of Lang Di (?), sue me if you dare!"), resulting in the ideological left being replaced by nancy boy liberalism. There is no LEFT left; it's all just liberals.
Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives have some very peculiar ideas about the meaning of the Constitution. It is truly bizarre that we are actually rehashing a variation on The Nullification Doctrine, a spurious bit of nonsense repudiated long ago. Generally speaking, referring to the Fed Papers to explain the Const. reveals a deep and abiding ignorance of the meaning of the document -- Madison's Notes are the better source of info in regards to intent. The Fed Papers are by their own admission, propaganda published to help insure ratification, and hence politically motivated. Like advertising, they weren't going to belabor the flaws.
However, conservatives proved they cannot be trusted to guard the Constitution any better than the liberals. In fact, recent history, mainly the attempted coup de tat against Clinton through blatant fishing expeditions in violation of the 4th Amend, reveal the deep menace toward the document underlying many "conservative" proclamations, quite a few of which are whackos posting in this forum.
Sea_Hunter| 1.10.11 @ 6:34PM
Gary; allow a voice of disagrement. I submit that you totally misunderstand the mind of a conservative. Conservatives are the very last people on earth to wish to control how people think. You are quite right though when you state that liberals wish to control how people act. But then, to act requires that you first think of the action you wish to commit. In this, I think that liberals wish to control both how one acts and how one thinks.
The conservative has a completely different mind set. We wish for people to be allowed to commit their own actions, and and then we demand that they hold responsibility for those actions. Twinkies didn't make someone do it, he did it on his own. We want people to think, and we want people to make their own choices, and we demand that a person be held absolutely responsible for his choices.
To rid the counter of Happy Meals is to deman that people think Happy Meals are so bad for their children that they must be denied and then allow the government to ban them. That is the liberal approach. The consertive approach is to perhaps warn parents about Happy Meals, but leave the choice of buying them entirely up to the parent.
So, I contend that you have it just a bit wrong. It is liberals/progressives who intend to make us think and act as they wish. Let me quote G.K. Chesterton, (roughly) "That when a government controls what you eat, you have no more freedom than a puppy dog." I have no desire to be the lap dog of a progressive. I should hope that no American does.
Sea_Hunter| 1.10.11 @ 6:43PM
Gary: With the exception noted above, your comments are very well reasoned. Indeed we do have on this blog more than a reasonable amount of "wackos posting." Wouldn't it be nice if reasoned argument replaced foul language and one sided, blind sided, comment? I wish.
Again, I actually enjoyed your comments. You made servral good points. SH.
Pat| 1.10.11 @ 4:50PM
Within the “Living Constitution”, which by the way takes up 97 gigabytes on the Democratic National Committee’s hard drive, the powers enumerated to the Federal government are awesome. The DNC’s document gives the government control over every facet of our lives, from what your kid can buy out of the school’s vending machines to which forms of taxation are strictly prohibited (the shortest paragraph within the Living Constitution) - but who wants to formally read a 90,000 page document in Congress, especially when ObamaCare’s legislation ran 2,000 pages and no one wanted to read it? However, it’s a mistake to believe the Left is hell bent on destroying an old piece of parchment moldering away inside the National Archives.
What the Dems object to isn’t the old written Constitution, it’s this wacky notion of taking it seriously. You read a few passages aloud and people might pay attention. Read a few more paragraphs and people start taking it seriously and talking like it actually means something. Pretty soon the Neanderthals within the Red States insist Washington must follow the Constitution – the one residing in the National Archives and not the one on their hard drive – a potential disaster in the making.
However, the Dems understand compromise, so here’s the deal they shortly intend to propose. You all agree to follow the Living Constitution, such as the part about filling out your form 1040 and sending in your money, the part that says they can take your hard earned money and give it to other people who truly deserve it while keeping only a smidgen for themselves or the part that says government employees can thoroughly feel you up before you travel. In return, the Democrats will build a massive new monument on the Mall in D. C. which will display the old Constitution so you can sleep peacefully at night, convinced your inalienable rights are protected. Is that fair or what?
Richard Baker| 1.10.11 @ 5:29PM
Victor:
I disagree. Washington and many of the Founding Fathers did see this Country as becoming much more, a great deal more, than it was at the inception. I'd suggest you read some of their personal writings on the subject. As you know, we are the Country with the most long lived constitution. Wonder why that is?
Hank Rearden-WI| 1.10.11 @ 10:46PM
This must be for Len, as light doesn't shine where he's keeping his head.
Case in point:
"As for your claim that the war on terrorism is actually providing for common defense, that's so absurd, it would be laughable were it not for it's foolishness. What country is attacking us? Who has sent their army to our borders, their navies to our waters?"
Sonny119| 1.11.11 @ 12:27AM
The U.S. Constitutional Govt. Document, was designed with Freedom and Liberty of a new Nation, and a new Nation's People, the Citizens, to have a Limited Govt., with Limited Powers over the American people, and which guaranteed the People, their Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties, as the starting point of a new Nation, with an Amendments section, to change and modify, the existing Statement of Laws, except for those in the 1st 10 Amendments, which is why they are called the Bill of Rights, which with NO person or Govt., can ever take away from the people, under this US Constitution.!!!
-
With that being said, only Anti-American, Liberal Hate Mongering Socialist Marxist Facist Obama Nazi's, would be against the US Constitution and the American People, to desecrate, denigrate, vilify, and want to Repeal, let alone destroy, the Greatest Political Governing Document ever written, as they do not want, like, or believe in Freedom, Liberty, Equal Justice, Equality, Independence, Self-Reliance, and most especially, Govt. Authority and Power, in the hands of the American People. This above all else is their Mantra; Govt, Control over the Masses.. Enslavement through Govt. Laws, Regulations, Taxation, Govt. Bureaucracy, the Courts, and their Police force of Union StormTrooper goons, and thugs, as well as the regular Police and Military forces..
Make No Mistake about it, Obama and all of his Liberal Socialist Marxist Communist Hate Mongering Revolutionaries, Reactionaries, Domestic Terrorists, and Union Goons, in Washington DC, the Media, Hollywood, and Socialist Marxist Communist Union Halls, all over the Nation, have all declared open Warfare on the US Constitution, and the American People.!!!
If the American People do not wake up to this fact, and remove them from power and office, by the next election in 2012, by rejecting their form of Radical Govt. Policies and Agenda, and the Authoritarian / Socialist Marxist Govt., then the American People, will have signed the death sentence to the US Constitution, Freedom and Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice, as they know it, forever.!!!
As President Ronald Reagan once said:
"Democracy and Freedom, must defended with each generation, for if it is not, it will surely Perish".!!
-
Nothing says Freedom and Liberty, better than the Declaration of Independence of 1776, as well as, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights..!!!!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. "
Tenn Slim| 1.11.11 @ 9:28AM
Reading the USC served one great purpose.
It illuminated the text that these Congressmen and Women, gave thier sacred oath to uphold.
In far toomany cases, this was the first time they really got a sense of what they had signed up for.
In the case of the Left, a definet eye opener. In the case of the Right, probably an eye opener also.
end
Semper FI
Brian| 1.11.11 @ 10:22AM
Like children reminded of mom and dad's rules, the left with its progressive/liberal allies has been confronted with the obvious end of the decades of confusing subjectivism it has practiced in the safe gray area of relativism. Now faced with the reality of what it is and is not permitted, the left is repulsed into a tantrum. Now faced with the reality of what the public will no longer accept, the left is resorting to the passive aggressive language they have for so long masterfully practiced. The people are finally recognizing the dishonest and disingenuous of politics practiced by the democrat party for far too many decades.
Csangos| 1.11.11 @ 3:03PM
You know how you determine if something is constitutional in the United States? You ask the US Supreme Court. Works every time. Iran has their Assembly of Experts, we have a Supreme Court.
hugh bnyn| 1.12.11 @ 4:35PM
"John Calvin was the REAL father of America."
-George Bancroft
American History emritus pre-eminent
1830
---He saw ---he knew ----he was there.
The Consitution for sure, but be very careful
of the freemasonic/Arminian heretical, globalist
collectivist manipulations and maneuverings
underway even behind this institution.
Surely the 'charitable foundations' NOW undeniably involved not just in dominating
our culture and government, but in advancing the
most horrifying agendas of eugnics ---have GOT
to go!
---We fell for Bill Graham and Oprah ---watch out
for those Glenn Beckian Arminian cookie and cakes collectivizing enmeshments.
WE ARE SERIOUS
-BEWARE!
Harrison | 1.13.11 @ 12:12PM
Why didn't they read the ENTIRE Constitution? They skipped parts like blacks being worth 3/5th of one white, for example.
Kenneth Moyes | 1.13.11 @ 12:30PM
The reading was disapointing. A careful look at C-Span showed that the House was essentially empty and Representatives only showed up to read their bit. It was not a genuine read of the Constitution by either party. In addition, selectively leaving out parts of the Constitution was an assault on the document itself.
I have written an instructive 16 chapter book-blog on how our Constitution has been abused, marginalized, and ignored by the progressive legislators and jurists of this country. It is free with no advertising and takes under an hour to read. It can be found at my website: www.republicof1789.com
Further, the House could have read the 3/5's blacks portion, then stopped and explained that this was an attempt by the north to eliminate salvery and not to diminish the people being held as slaves.
The south wanted to counted slaves as people and this would have given the south an advantage in Congress that would have perpetuated slavery. Instead the north argued that if the blacks were people and not property they could not be slaves. The 3/5's was a compromise with the intent of keeping the south in check by the north, preventing the expanmsion of slavery, and a continuation of the fight against slavery.
Kenneth Moyes | 1.13.11 @ 12:36PM
For those who believe that the Constitution is a living document and rely on the Supreme Court and other federal jurists to update it, I call your attention to the living document apparatus of the Constitution found in Article V. Any other change is without due process as jurists have no privlege to amend or modify our constitution.
duck| 1.13.11 @ 2:26PM
That awful piece of parchment, that National Rubber Check called the Constitution that Liberals call useless or stands in their way until there is something that occurs that the liberal mind set doesn't like or that the left wants to happen and then, if the Constitution can be used, the Constitution becomes, once again, carved in stone, the infallible law of the land.
How many times has the left yelled that something was un-Constitutional no matter how obtuse their Constitutional logic was applied, they needed that iron clad document to get their way...at least this time,..... by next week the Constitution will be in their way and once again will become that useless parchment that the left bemoans...
S Rubicon| 1.13.11 @ 3:55PM
Lets face it folks, despite any flaws some can find in the Constitution, despite the changing life we now face in this era, that document enshrined that the law of this land is that document and the nation is of the people, not the government.
Obama may want to list what the government can do for us, but in truth what he means is with a long list comes the ability for bureaucrats (read: liberals) to impose draconian levels of regulation & policies on the people. In short, his list he would have in the constitution, would really list what the government can do TO us.
No thanks Barack. I like it just the way it is right now! I especially do not want changes YOU would impose on us!
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:50AM
is good
العاب | 4.10.12 @ 1:00PM
Why do you bleeding heart liberals fixate on the number of rounds a firearm can hold?