Judge Napolitano v James Clyburn Debating Constitutionality of Federal Health Care
Top Comments
All Comments (12)
-
"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government." Ayn Rand
-
The Judge Ruled!
-
It's really scary that a man that thinks like Clyburn can be elected to or Congress!! The only way something can be repealed in the constitution is through 2/3 vote in the senate. If you don't have that, then you have NO right to add or take anything away from the LAW OF THE LAND...PERIOD!!!!
-
@johnnydeant Well-put. Indeed, why even have a constitution? We could just have a king, like the libs who want to turn back the clock seem to want.
-
@L0n3Rid3r Wait, wait, wait, are you assuming the Judge was going along with Bush just because he works at Fox News?
you, my friend, are prejudice. Napolitano is 100% for the constitution, throughout all presidencies.
-
You are a lie seeker, you people smell like failure.
-
Well, at Clyburn is honest, unlike most other Politicians... however that does not make him right, and it is people like him who are driving this country to hell.
-
They are enemy combatants,should never have citizen rights but tried in a military tribunal. They had plead guilty and wanted execution. The wish should have been granted. The trial will be against the former administration, our military and we the people. The Constitution is no more a living document than the Bible. It is the law of the land and we should devote ourselves to what our forefathers set forth.
@L0n3Rid3r I understand that you have no clue what the Constitution is about but will try 2 help you understand one particular fact about it
If it was a living document like some idiots want it 2 be, why would they put in an Amendment process? If a meaning could simply be changed by an ass like Clyburn, we wouldnt need an Amendment process. They could simply say that the meaning changed and be done with it. They gave an Amendment process to change the meanings no other way is Constitutional.
johnnydeant 1 year ago 6
I support a bill that requires Clyburn to wear duct tape on his mouth 24/7 any time congress is in session. If anyone has a right to free speech, it's the people, and if anyone should lose the ability to speak it is those in the government.
blogbat 1 year ago 2