Tag Archives: constitution

Executive powers…

Posted on by

Some sections of the Constitution are vaguely worded and difficult to understand. Others are written in pretty plain English and can be plainly understood even without a helpful ruling from the Supreme Court. Now bear in mind that I’m generally a proponent of broadly interpreted executive powers. I like my presidencies Imperial. But what we have here is just an example of an executive branch agency, namely the TSA, being stupid for no apparent reason.

As much as I think Senator Paul and his dad are a little and a lot on the kooky side, respectively, they’re still members of the United States Congress, which means that “in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,” at least according to Article 1, Section 6.

Whether TSA’s handling of this incident constitutes arrest, detainment, denial of service, or some other turn of phrase is certainly open for debate, but regardless of the phrase we decide to use, it ultimately means that the senator was, at least briefly, barred from returning to Washington. In doing this, I can have no opinion other than the TSA violated the intent, if not the letter, of the Constitution. Maybe it was an honest mistake and maybe it wasn’t, but there are broader issues that need to be addressed. The rights of a Member of Congress to free and unobstructed travel in the conduct of their duties as elected representatives of the people are specifically identified in our foundational document. If those rights can be so easily thwarted, what hope is there for the general public to be free from this kind of treatment?

Surely we can come up with a better method of maintaining public safety in the air than relying on federal employees touching our junk.

Against the Constitution…

Posted on by

Three times today in three different contexts, I heard three different people say that something was “against the Constitution.” That’s all well and good of course, assuming that what you’re talking about has anything even remotely to do with the national user’s manual. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that nothing we were talking about today came anywhere close to that level importance. Look, “against the Constitution” is a fine figure of speech and I’m all for it, but these people were adamant that their particular issue was certain to be covered somewhere in an Article or in one of the Amendments at a minimum. I won’t cover the specifics other than to say simply that they were wrong. Not just wrong, but breathtakingly wrongheaded in fact.

It occurs to me that these are all educated people and then the real truth sinks in. Aside from knowing we have a Constitution and possible that there are amendments to it the average person knows alarmingly little about the Constitution and what it actually does. Now I’m not a fancy big city lawyer or even a passable excuse for a constitutional scholar, but I managed to follow the gist of it. I know more or less what the each Article covers and have a rough idea which amendments were added during which historical periods and the general topics they address. For those of you playing along at home, the first 12 were post revolutionary, 13-15 were a result of the Civil War, 16-21 were all about the Progressive movement, and 22-27 came along because the last half of the 20th century is when we started thinking that we needed an Amendment for things that would have been regular legislation in earlier eras.

I’ve long since given up on expecting people to know details about anything really, but if you’re going to try to buttress your argument by claiming constitutional blessing, it might help if you had at least some basic knowledge before opening your filthy pie hole. Otherwise you’re going to make me want to find a flag, wrap you in it, and then set you on fire. At least one of those two acts is constitutionally protected. Sadly, it’s not lighting dumbasses aflame.

What Annoys Jeff this Week?

Posted on by

It’s Thursday night… and that means it’s time again for your regular installment of What Annoys Jeff this Week. In no particular order, here we go…

1. Ron Paul. As much as he’d like to roll back the clock, it’s not 1789. The Constitution and the laws have to be expansive enough to deal with the real world, not the loony tunes world you’ve created in your own head. It’s not ideal, but I’d rather have TSA running security at the check in line than turn that mission over to Blackwater. Guaranteeing free and secure movement around the country is a compelling national interest and belongs in the purview of the federal government, you cranky old coot.

2. Rain. Enough already. Between pansy hurricanes and tropical storm remnants, it’s been raining more or less for two weeks with occasional pauses to regroup, reinforce, and start raining again. It’s really time to knock it off for a while. Since the dogs still won’t go out unless I go with them, this is becoming a priority as getting soaked to the bone two or three times a night is no longer a sustainable solution.

3. People who over-share personal information. I don’t need a running narrative about whatever you happen to be doing over there. I don’t care that you think oysters are disgusting. And I absolutely, positively don’t need or want to know the fascinating medical history of your family and the trials and tribulations of elder care. We happen to share office space, I promise you that doesn’t mean we need to share our deepest, darkest secrets… mkay? Thanks now.

4. Apple. Yeah, I said it. Apple. Release the damned iPhone 5 already. I’ve got money and I want to give it to you.

Treason…

Posted on by

This Monday Rasmussen released a poll that proclaimed a “pre-revolutionary” sentiment in the United States. Watching the home grown violence gripping our allies in the UK, in Spain, and in Greece, we should take a hard look at what it means to be “pre-revolutionary.” A revolution isn’t just tearing down the machine with no ideas about what the next best thing should look like. Can you imagine George Washington or Ben Franklin simply throwing out the British and then going home to hope for the best… but only after looting all the stores in Philadelphia?

I know there are plenty of people out there agitating and that there are a few of them who have no purpose other than just wanting to see the world burn. Our forefathers granted us a republic and we owe it to ourselves and our own posterity to avail ourselves of every built in electoral and procedural safeguard to maintain it. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. When I took that oath, I never dreamed that it would be the latter that most worried me.

If there is doubt for anyone reading this, let me go on the record in as loud and clear a voice as I can muster: The faceless mob, the rabble, who use the present adversity to feed into this call for insurrection deserve nothing more than a traitor’s death. In a turbulent world, we are still the last great bulwark between civilization and the abyss. Should be stumble or if we shrug, beyond here there be monsters.

Down to the wire…

Posted on by

Today being the single most non-productive work day in my professional life, I had time to ponder the ineptitude with witch our elected officials are managing the country’s business. As we march on towards midnight on the east coast, a few words come to mind. Among them are pathetic, inexcusable, farcical, shameful, and just plain disgusting. Watching these “representatives” of the people allow the government to slip minute by minute towards shutdown, insolvency, and deadlock should be disheartening to anyone who goes to work every day and is actually expected to get their job done.

A friend posted something on my Facebook wall this morning, that I think sums it up better than I can at the moment: “Other countries may have coups, revolutions, and collapses, but a government so deadlocked it simply ceases to function seems to be an exclusively American phenomenon.” The quote is attributed to Foreign Policy, and it should be plastered on all of our minds the next time we head to the polls. That the government of our republic can be thrown into this kind of turmoil by congressional inability to accomplish one of the few tasks specifically assigned to it by the Constitution would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

I’m embarrassed for them… and for us.

Milestone… But not the way you think…

Posted on by

There’s a lot of talk today about the milestone of inaugurating a black president. Yes, it’s definitely a remarkable bit of history and not something I expected to see in my lifetime, but there hasn’t been much talk about the more important event that happened with the transfer of power to President Obama. In a time when the United States is at war in two countries, when entire sectors of the economy are collapsing, and when we the people are hell bent on hating one another for simple political difference there was a peaceful transfer of power from on leader to another. At a time when a Caesar or a Napoleon grasped the reins of power more firmly in other places and in other times, the Commander-in-Chief laid aside his powers and followed the long unbroken line of past presidents in the example set by the nation’s first chief executive. Instead of raising an army,

Of course today is a milestone in that it’s no longer acceptable to set limits based on race or to use it as an excuse , but it’s more important still in that we learned once again that the Constitution works; That our republic, despite its warts, remains strong. Could any of us really ask for a better milestone?

P.S. Could the Chief Justice at least have memorized the Oath of Office… Geesh…