tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post4621808255970291076..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: AssortedFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-26980125843615217302014-03-12T12:09:07.590-04:002014-03-12T12:09:07.590-04:00Dear Peggy;
It never was.
See John Marshall in M...Dear Peggy;<br /><br />It never was.<br /><br />See John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison.<br /><br />MMark Philip Algerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09595406476619940294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-90465905027675223752014-03-11T21:01:54.025-04:002014-03-11T21:01:54.025-04:00There are many in Congress who bear an unadulterat...There are many in Congress who bear an unadulterated hatred of the U.S. Constitution. Progressives hate the document precisely because it limits their power. Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of the mental contortions that the left resorts to in an effort to bypass the document. Can't find a way around a guaranteed protection? Not a problem, just resort to international law or create a synthetic pretext to support your position. Of course, a strict interpretation of that document would preclude this foolishness, but that is exactly why the left consistently argues for a loose interpretation. As Sumner says, "If it doesn’t mean exactly what its text says—the public meanings of the words as ordinary people understand them—then no one can possibly know what it means. But if no one can know what the Constitution means, then no one can know whether any other law conforms to it." And the leftist sleight of hand is revealed. That is exactly why the loose interpretation approach is not only wrong, but dangerous.<br /><br />Add to this that the left has been stacking the courts, legislation from the bench, and a complicit legislature, and you have a finely crafted weapon to slaughter liberty. By removing the American citizen from the legislative process you arrive at a point where tyranny is inevitable. It will continue to hide it's true face, but it is never the less a brutal jackboot pressed down roughly on the throat of a helpless populace. But Republics do not die from violence, they die because the laws upon which they are founded are reinterpreted to empower an individual or group of individuals.<br /><br />Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening here.<br />William Stouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15481469340558843146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-78290134139505443082014-03-11T12:15:35.675-04:002014-03-11T12:15:35.675-04:00The EPA, along with other Federal agencies, seems ...The EPA, along with other Federal agencies, seems like it wants to rewrite the laws of physics and chemistry to suit its needs. Does it ever even occur to them that "sulfur free" gasoline (presumably their ideal fuel if they *must* resort to fossil fuels) may not even by physically possible? What's next? 100% pure ethanol in the tanks? Government wants to re-write reality by fiat, but physics will ALWAYS win in the end! How many people will suffer and die to prove this point?Malcolm Haysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-64873407292082134742014-03-11T10:29:46.418-04:002014-03-11T10:29:46.418-04:00I agree and add that you could make the same state...I agree and add that you could make the same statement about the 2nd amendment. The constitution is so clear about private ownership of guns not being infringed, and that means not infringed by any of the three separate branches of government. The congress cannot pass laws usurping the constitution, the executive branch cannot without law usurp the constitution and the judicial branch cannot rule against the constitution. Virtually all of the federal, state and local laws that limit the 2nd amendment are unconstitutional, period!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com