Jim Morin by Jim Morin

Jim MorinNo Zoom

Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I don’t know if Morin is being sarcastic or critical, but as I see it the founders did build in the ability to change in the future. The Ninth Amendment is testament to that. The fact that the Constitution can be amended and added to shows that they had the foresight to anticipate the need for flexibility.

  2. ODon

    ODon said, over 3 years ago

    Good summary.

  3. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 3 years ago

    I like this cartoon. It’s fair to question whether our constitution can endure.

  4. morningguy

    morningguy said, over 3 years ago

    Sometimes you just say, WTF, and go with it

  5. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 3 years ago

    Let us consider something:

    Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, America was governed by The Articles of Confederation, a government that had no power to levy taxes, and was virtually powerless over the states, The execuitve brach was impotent and the elected representatives had practically zero ability to regulate commerce or business. And even if they’d had it, a ‘no’ vote by any single state was enough to derail any legistlation.

    It was, to paraphrase Grover Norquist, ‘a goverment small enough to drown in a bathtub.’ The same type of government the Tea-Party Republicans have advocated again, and again, and again,( But only since Obama’s election ) The articles of Confederation was probably the closest thing to a Libertarian goverment this country has ever had.

    It was a train wreck, America was bankrupt, could not meet it’s debt payments. The British still had troops garrisoned here, and there was nothing we could do to dislodge them. This country was the laughingstock of Europe. Bets were being taken on how long it would take the whole thing to collapse

    And THIS type of helpless Federal Government is where the Tea-Party wants to take this country…AGAIN?

  6. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 3 years ago

    As another of our resident righties might put it, I’d consider that a badge of honor

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    Hey there Brother Simon, let us consider some of what you said in the light of truth.

    The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. This document provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations"

    Yes, in the beginning, as a first stop gap measure, the government newly formed was small and weak. However, it gave the 13 members respite, a chance to review, and a chance to draft a better document. Writing and ratification – getting everyone on board – took from 1776 to 1781. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution which provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.

    You must understand that getting group agreement is like herding cats don’t you? Things take time and testing and refining.

    Now let’s address the TEA Party statement. You said concerning the goals of that movement, that it wants to return to the original documents (well that’;s what I see please correct me if I am wrong) " The same type of government the Tea-Party Republicans have advocated again, and again, and again,( But only since Obama’s election )"

    So the last claim is true BUT since the TEA Party did not EXIST before Obama’s election then it was easy to get that right. Now over 90 million Americans voice approval of the TEA Party since it"s inception in 2009. AFTER Obama’s election and inauguration. (click the link and read the history)

    As for wanting to go all the way back to the Articles of Confederation well please read the TEA Party platform and see the truth.

  8. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 3 years ago


    Wrong Bruce, the Constitutional Convention wasn’t even conceived of as a body to ‘draft a better document’ It was orginally called merely to REVISE the Articles. Big difference

    As for the Tea-Party being some sort of new organization, it’s merely the newest label on a group that’s actually been around since the 1930s, ( and that’s a straw-man argument anyway. ) Whether known as the Liberty League, The Southern Commitee to Uphold the Constitution or Chirstian America, there has always been a group around with the same stated goals as the Tea-Party

    And bankrolled by BIg Oil.

  9. spyderred

    spyderred said, over 3 years ago


    Well put.

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    You say tuh – mey – toh, , I say tu – mah – toh …….

    So then if you revise a document do you leave it the same? Is the revision an improvement on the original? Does that revision sometimes result in a completely different document?

    So after the Constitution was written, the authors saw that they left out some stuff so they revised it again and added the first ten amendments.

    Now please, I want YOU to back up what you said about the origins of the TEA Party with some reference material. Like I did. Two references that you probably didn’t bother to look at.

    In support of my statement above the definition of:


    to amend or alter: to revise one’s opinion.

    to alter something already written or printed,in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

    Come on, you can do better than this.

  11. spyderred

    spyderred said, over 3 years ago

    Unlike ol’ Bruce, some actual facts about the tea party: A Gallup poll conducted in March 2010 found that—other than gender, income and politics—self-described Tea Party members were demographically similar to the population as a whole. When surveying supporters or participants of the Tea Party movement, polls have shown that they are to a very great extent more likely to be registered Republican, have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party and an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. The Bloomberg National Poll of adults 18 and over showed that 40% of Tea Party supporters are 55 or older, compared with 32% of all poll respondents; 79% are white, 61% are men and 44% identify as “born-again Christians”,compared with 75%, 48.5%, and 34% or the general population, respectively.

    The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of emissions trading legislation to encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide. An example is the movement’s support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.190 The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor.
    Many of the movement’s members also favor stricter measures against illegal immigration.
    Polls found that just 7% of Tea Party supporters approve of how Obama is doing his job compared to 50% (as of April 2010) of the general public,180 and that roughly 77% of supporters had voted for Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain in 2008.
    A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama’s policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial Arizona immigration law enacted in 2010 which requires police to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants for proof of legal status, 54% feel that immigration is changing the culture in the U.S. for the worse, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that “Compared to the size of the group, lesbians and gays have too much political power”.[

    So what we have is a bunch of people who are financially comfortable, older, not representative of most of the country, and feel that they will lose what they have if anyone else gets more; i.e., zero-sum mentality. willing to step on the heads of anyone who is not them to keep what they have. No wonder they are Republicans.

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    OK so the facts:

    The American Liberty League was an American political organization formed in 1934, primarily by conservative Democrats to oppose the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt

    In 1934 [Vance] Muse and [John Henry] Kirby organized the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, financed mostly by the DuPonts and other northern industrial interests, in an effort to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reelection

    Now those two were funded by men with money – lots of it – just like politicians today have their “super-pacs”. and they formed to get FDR out of office.

    And, yes, Tea Party funding comes from (gasp) people with money.

    So how about Obama? Well, his organizing for America (created in2009 as was the TEA Party) has become Organizing for Action and the Huffington Post had this to say in an article published January 2013.

    “With Organizing for Action, Obama has chosen to embrace the political power of his office by expanding the permanent campaign in an unprecedented way while creating new avenues for the soft corporate money that he spent years warning against.”

    So tell me, which politician does not have big money behind them?

    You raised me “big oil” I call and raise you one SOROS.


  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    Yeah….. a few polls ….. and while I do not disagree with the results, you have taken a medium that “samples” the population with “crafted” questions that can result in supporting the preconceived notions of the pollster.

    For example, you note the “A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington” . That is a “sample” taken from almost 4 million registered voters. What is that 0.0004 percent?

    So rather than "facts’ you have “opinion” of the people polled who may or may not BE TEA party people.

    But, the words of the organization itself can not be “facts” in your opinion.

  14. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 3 years ago


    Bruce, the “conservative Democrats” of FDR’s day are Republicans today. There was a massive shift in the 1960s, when the Democrats became the party of civil rights.
    Soros is one (1) rich guy, who supports his beliefs publicly. Whereas VAST amounts of corporate “dark money” are being funneled to politicians of both parties — but mostly the GOP, based on estimates.
    Also, the Tea Party would not exist without the funding of the Koch brothers. It isn’t a movement, it’s a funded political operation.
    Yes, both parties have started doing it; but the GOP are masters.

  15. Archimedes

    Archimedes said, over 3 years ago

    So many statements above so much misinformation. Number one the constitutional convention while convened to revise the constitution was intended from the very beginning by many of the participants to actually write a new document. Madison and Washington chief among those who held this position. The amendments though not included in the original draft sent out for ratification were understood my the states to be an addendum that would be added. The reason the Bill of Rights was not added orignally was time. The convention wanted to close and people wanted to get home. Many founders did not think the Bill was necessary since the rights clearly not removed by the constitution but Mason, Gerry and others realized if it was not specifically written into the constitution later folk would manipulate the facts. More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democratics so that old canard of, “those democrats became today’s Republicans” is full of shite. Why would the racist Democrats leave a party they were the majority of to join a party they would be in the minority. Let’s look at those that voted against it in the Senate
    Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
    - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
    - Holland and Smathers of Florida
    - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
    - Ellender and Long of Louisiana
    - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
    - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
    - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
    - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
    - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
    - R. Byrd of West Virginia

    Tell me, which of these folks became Republicans?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (4).