Clay Jones by Clay Jones

Clay Jones

Recommended

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ken Warren

    Ken Warren said, about 3 years ago

    Hope and progress are dangerous and must be fought at every turn.

    If you don’t kill hope and progress it will grow and then what you will you have?

    I guess we are still a long way from entering the 20th Century.

  2. Ransom D Stone

    Ransom D Stone said, about 3 years ago

    Hey, the States are all with Elephant ‘Governors’. This week is a total repeat of last week.

  3. Fairportfan2

    Fairportfan2 said, about 3 years ago

    One Democrat Attorney General is in on this - Louisiana.

    But he’s only there because his Republican Governor told him to.

    They apparently learnt nothing from the Civil Rights era.

  4. Bill Ewing

    Bill Ewing said, about 3 years ago

    An Article V convention would guarantee a Socialist government as the first thing the Obama-ites will do is scrap the old one and never write in anything remotely resembling the concept of Freedom!

    If we value our very Free existance, an Article V convention must be fought at every turn!

    Especially with this crowd in charge, although I don’t trust either party where this is concerned.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    What planet do you guys live on, anyway? If you wanted to defend the Constitution, why didn’t you speak up regarding the Patriot Act?

  6. Jade

    Jade said, about 3 years ago

    “If you wanted to defend the Constitution, why didn’t you speak up regarding the Patriot Act?”

    • Or the amendments proposed specifically targeting the denial of rights to a minority.

  7. charliekane

    charliekane said, about 3 years ago

    Sumbuddy needs to turn that frown upside down.

  8. Radish

    Radish said, about 3 years ago

    Howgozit, isn’t that because the repubs have been blocking everything?

  9. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 3 years ago

    MOTIVE: The Patriot Act was supported by wide margins in both Houses of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. As a matter of fact, only one Senator voted “No” (Russ Feingold). Leaky Leahy also expressed concerns. However, many parts were deemed necessary by both detractors and supporters. (wiki)

    Most provisions were indeed deemed Constitutional. They’ve been removed and/or re-written. That doesn’t stop liberal groups such as the ACLU from continuing to file lawsuits aimed at protecting terrorists.

    The Act was specifically written with provisions that sunset. Time and again they have been renewed, most recently by the most liberal Congress in history.

    But you knew that, right?

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    Some of the Hope has turned into Change. More on the way.

  11. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    churchill: Yes, contrary to what you think, I knew that. It was a shameless piece of fear-driven abuse of the Constitution that overturned centuries of precedent, and the Democrats caved in as they so often do because they were afraid of being demonized as “soft on terrorism,” which they were anyway. Wankers. But you knew all that, didn’t you? But I digress. And for the record, for those suddenly interested in whether you can constitutionally require someone to buy something, the first case on record was the Militia Act of 1792, under George Washington. It required able-bodied male citizens aged 18-45 to buy a musket and ammunition. Congress even debated whether to subsidize the purchase of guns for those men too poor to afford it themselves. Sound familiar? The NRA loves quoting this to show how the Founding Fathers would have been against gun control, but it also establishes once and for all that this is an OLD precedent, and, folks, you can’t have it both ways!

  12. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Oh, and the text of the Militia Act is here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM#TOC33

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 3 years ago

    So MM I can get my 30-30 subsidized? And help with the ammo too? GREAT!

    Yeah, George had a war to fight, we have people dying in the streets. Tell me? Was George’s plan to fine and or jail all those that didn’t comply or was he just gonna shoot ‘em?

  14. W(ar).Crime

    W(ar).Crime said, about 3 years ago

    Well said lonecat

  15. cdward

    cdward said, about 3 years ago

    I suppose we were fighting the Northwest Indian War in 1792, but that doesn’t change the principle. The point is that the government can require us to buy things - to spend money, and it has used that authority in the past.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).