Democrats, Another threat on the constitution

tbubster · Sep 28, 2011

This is one way for them not to face the voters next year.First example is the gov of NC.she says she did not really mean it a spokeswoman says she was
obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem:

you can find a link on this page to hear the gvoerners own words.She seems pretty serious about it.Even says she hopes people will agree with her on it.

Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years | newsobserver.com projects

Then take whast former white house budget director under Obama Peter Orszag had to say about the Idea.

"So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic,"

here is the link to his artical.titled Too Much of a Good Thing
Why we need less democracy.

Too Much Of A Good Thing | The New Republic

Yep lets do away from haveing them answer to the voters.Know I know that for some of this crap to happen all it takes is a different supreme court then the one that is sitting right now.Think im wrong?Take Obamacare.I belive it to be unconstitutional yet his solicitor general at the time of the writting the law assures Obama it is leagel under the constitution.Where is that solicitor general now?Well we all know her now as Supreme court justice Elena kagan.I also know some of these ideas would take long court battles to settel.However it is important that when these kinds of ideas are talked about by our elected officals that they are exposed to the public for what they are.A threat to our constitution.

layoutshooter · Sep 28, 2011

Nothing new here. Tyranny in action. What else do you expect?

Tennesseahawk · Sep 28, 2011

Reminds me of Bloomburg getting around the term limit of NYC mayor. Basically, to the council, "Vote me AND YOURSELVES another term. To hell with the rules! Let's make our own as we go along!"

IOW... suspend the rules, as long as it benefits you. No wonder we have a corrupt society/politic. People do the same thing. They want their rights, but they want the stuff that goes against the Constitution too. Then they are the first ones whining when their civil rights get whizzed on.

layoutshooter · Sep 28, 2011

Tennesseahawk said:
Reminds me of Bloomburg getting around the term limit of NYC mayor. Basically, to the council, "Vote me AND YOURSELVES another term. To hell with the rules! Let's make our own as we go along!"

IOW... suspend the rules, as long as it benefits you. No wonder we have a corrupt society/politic. People do the same thing. They want their rights, but they want the stuff that goes against the Constitution too. Then they are the first ones whining when their civil rights get whizzed on.

Not everyone wants bad stuff.

Tennesseahawk · Sep 28, 2011

No, not everyone does. But people don't usually put liberty at the top of their government wish list. They like their SSI, and their medicare, and their Obamacare; and think they can have their cake and eat it to when it comes to the Constitution. It doesn't work that way. If the government gives you something, they will take something else away... usually a bit of your liberty. The states are finding this out with the jobs bill... take this money, and suspend your 11th Amendment immunities. I know plenty of blue states that won't care. Dey jus wants der moneys.