CDR Salamander: Sunday Funnies

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Sunday Funnies

23 comments:

virgil xenophon said...: A classic. And the red will be a helluva lot more permanent than the black.; 11:39
DM05 said...: A great image, and so telling about the human condition...We focus on the tragedy of an oil spill, while knowing oil is pivotal. Of course, it's dirty work to get it to the gas pump. It'll get cleaned up eventually, the lawyers will be paid, and mother earth will survive. Last week at church, one of the well meaning libs asked me, retired and all, why the Navy couldn't solve that oil problem - why "they" weren't all over it - and wasn't it horrible for the environment, and fish and animals would die. Egads man...I gently, narthex & all, reminded him what the Navy was really for. Things like political will, influencing nations, and wreaking death & destruction when called upon by NCA.

Whoops, should have shared the diversity story, that would have gone over better.

Meanwhile, back on the Potomac, we're mired in debt thanks to political hacks for their own gain, saddling generations, and killing the economy for years. But hey, our attention spans are like gnats, we only pay attention near tax time and every couple years in November.; 19:13
Guest said...: DM-05 , succinct , and accurate.    Well done.
What's the solution ? Centralized gov't is just big and powerful.

Time to consider decentralizing power and gov't in our country.

ever heard of this saying ?   Google it.

" Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseperable ".

Perhaps we need to consider the opposite of this ?

Big central gov't is certainly not representing the majority any longer.; 19:33
Skippy-san said...: As in allowing companies like BP to resist demands for safety improvements that would have greatly reduced the damage the spills caused? That kind of freedom?; 00:26
Skippy-san said...: P.S. Your quote by the way is a wondeful argument by Daniel Webster against a smaller government. "The proposition that, in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the states have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of Congress is the proposition of the gentleman. I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever."; 00:33
ShawnP said...: Kinda looks like my eyes after a good night out in Palma during the summer time.; 02:03
UltimaRatioRegis said...: Skippy,

Nowhere have I ever seen that Webster's antebellum statement in Congress was an assertion to nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Nor was it a statement that the role of the Federal Government should extend so far beyond Article I.

If one was able to bring out those members of Congress from the 1840s and 50s to see what their Federal Government has become, ALL of them, even the most passionate Unionists, would be appalled.; 08:06
Grumpy Old Ham said...: You were obviously not properly indoctrinated, URR. The Constitution is a living document, and it says whatever people want it to say.

Now off to the reeducation camp with you. Don't forget your shovel.; 08:16
UltimaRatioRegis said...: I love the "living document" part. All the framers were white men. What did they know compared to Al Sharpton and Sonia Sotomayor? Hell, they forgot to include economic justice!; 09:22
UltimaRatioRegis said...: <span>I love the "living document" part. All the framers were white men. What did they know compared to Al Sharpton and Sonia Sotomayor? Hell, they even forgot to include economic justice!</span>; 09:23
Aubrey said...: Errr, yes. I think the tens of billions in lawsuits and settlements that BP will end up paying out will do more to encourage them to spend several million per platform for safety and redundant systems than all the government regs on the books. The ROI on such things will look a whole lot different as they write out all those checks...

Of course, the current regime will most likely just decide to nationalize BP (after they pay out the settlements) and then install a 5 Year Plan for safety and profitability!; 09:58
Skippy-san said...: The key part of Websters whole argument is that the Union is indivisible and that if change is required-it must be worked within the confines of the Constitution. In his statement Webster repeatedly makes references to changes that have been found to be Consititutional-by the empowerd agencies of the Constitution to do so-in which case the doctrine of state nullification of those laws is not only wrong-but dangerous to the integrity of the Union.

Personally, I believe the founding fathers did expect the interpretation of the Consititution to evolve. What they wanted was for changes to be well thought out and hard to make-thus the reason for the difficulty in amending the Constitution. Nonetheless they expected the nation to evolve as science and technology evolved. As men of the Enlightment they could have expected nothing less.

Just about every thing folks complain about being "vast government takeover" has been ruled Constitutional and has survived court challenges repeatedly. So Mr. Webster is still right.; 13:09
Old NFO said...: In a few years the gulf oil spill will be gone, a memory dredged up only when the left wants to scare people into accepting ever higher energy prices, lower standards of living and oppressive government control of ever more of our lives.

On the other hand, the red ink spill will be passed on to future generations becoming the secular equivalent of the consequences of sin being passed on to the even the fourth and fifth generations.

We look back at the generations before us and see the brilliance of the founders, the bravery of the Civil War generation and the pioneers, the transformation of the US into a great power and the sacrifice of the WWII generation. A hundred years from now I think that our posterity will remember us as profligate wastrels who squandered the family inheritance and left future generations in a form of debt slavery.; 13:19
UltimaRatioRegis said...: Skippy,

In short, nope. Though Webster may have been very correct on his assertions of primacy of Federal legislation deemed Constitutional, your other assertions make me cringe. Serious Constitutional challenge of the growth of the Federal government since Johnson's administration have never faced anything but the most cursory of review.

Judicial activism in which judges de facto create law and influence interpretation represent the most serious danger to the system of checks and balances that this nation may ever have faced. Starting with Garrity in the Boston busing mess, they have deliberately subverted Constitutional and Legislative process to promote and to champion not their interpretation of the law, but their societal views and causes.

Even something like establishment of the Department of Education at the Federal level is on very shaky ground under the Tenth Amendment, but has never been heard by SCOTUS. Entitlement programs to give US taxpayers' money to illegal immigrants violates the Ninth Amendment routinely. Racial and gender quotas and "hate crime" legislation (including the "diversity" nonsense in the US Navy) is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

So, please, stop the "vast government takeover" lecture, or I will turn you in to Big Sister for "hate speech" and you will be denied your entitlements, and since the Feds now control the entire of the college loan process, they won't allow your kids or grandkids to go to college. After all, such a "right" is only for the politically desirable.

Mister Webster was never wrong. Constitutional revisionists, activist judges, socialist/communist presidents? They are another matter.; 13:48
UltimaRatioRegis said...: Oh, and Second and Fourth Amendment violations by Federal authorities are rampant, and largely tied to increased "jurisdictional authority" of the ever-growing law enforcement part of our Federal Government. (And I don't mean the Patriot Act.)

I can't wait for Finance Reform. On top of Health Reform. And takeover of US industries. Nope, no massive Federal Government exceeding its Constitutional parameters here....

US taxpayers shelling out for both the removal of the Ten Commandments from all public buildings as a violation of the First Amendment, and at the same time paying for the installation of foot baths for Muslims in Michigan? Judicial activism. Let's dissolve Congress and just wait for the US Circuit Court judges to tell us what we are allowed to do.; 14:01
Skippy-san said...: You go to war with the Supreme Court you have-not the Supreme Court you wish you had.

Paranoid much?; 19:27
Skippy-san said...: Paranoid much? You go to war with the Supreme Court you have-no the one you wish you had. That, by the way applies to both sides of the political divide.

Mr Webster has some advice for you, have a drink and relax.

"But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of Constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordaned, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."; 20:04
Old NFO said...: We are becoming like Britain. The written constitution has become meaningless, the black letter words are ignored and the opinions of black robed legislators the law of the land. The idea that whatever five members of the SCOTUS think is groovy should be the law of the land would cause the founders to spin in their graves. Considering that the left wants to ignore at least 3 of the 10 parts of the bill of rights should concern us. Who says we should stop with the 2nd, 9th and 10th? What makes the 1st and 5th sancrosant? Or any of the others for that matter? If you truly adhere to the theory that whatever congress passes, and the SCOTUS does not strike down, is constitutionally proper you may find yourself appalled.; 23:41
UltimaRatioRegis said...: C'mon Skippy. Webster is asserting the primacy of the Constitution, not the 9th Circuit Court in San Fran. Or W Arthur Garrity in Boston. Or any other political appointee judges. Or Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, or even B Hussein Obama.

The secular progressive welfare state we are working toward is in clear violation of a great deal of that very Constitution. Excessively burdensome tax codes that causes the top 50% to pay nearly ALL taxes, diversity and "hate crime" laws that overtly favor one group of people over all others, nationalization of a health care system and insurance system, proposed "reform" of the financial system to one beholden to Federal policy and not market forces, all these measures are in violation of the Constitution. Stifling of free expression in the name of "not offending", an Attorney General and appointed judges who have openly talked about curtailing rights under the Second Amendment, preferential laws and statutes, all these exist already. Next will be "immigration reform" which will allow illegal aliens to enter this country and immediately become a left voting block, though I am SURE that is merely a coincidence.

Find me in the Constitution where any of these actions are permitted, or where they have been reviewed by SCOTUS. I would submit that nearly all of them are forbidden.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"No state shallmake or enforce any law which abridges the privledges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws".

Socialist, heal thyself.; 09:19
Skippy-san said...: Nothing like a good challenge:

Free-Speech? Lots of case law-including Citizens United which upheld free speech for rich corporations. We also should not forget any of the the various decisions holding up the right to post stupid ideas on the Internet. ( Like the idea that the US is turning socialist).

Right to bear arms? Overturned DC's gun control law. Plus-for a country that is robbing you of your guns, we live in a country where people go to Starbucks packing heat ( In some states).

Amendment 9 and 10? Try going back to Article 1 Section 8-powers have been specifically given to Congress to pass laws promoting and regulating Congress. They have survived for the most part Constitutional challenges on those grounds.

As for your last statement-well that is why people are up in arms about Arizona's law.

Besides-what is it that you would offer as an alternative? There are three branches of government, not two-and the Supreme Court is what it is. The President appoints justices-the Senate advises and consents. ( or doesn't). That is how our system is supposed to work. I hate to break it to you-but its been that when for over 200 years. I mean, I have Supreme Court decisions I disagreed with-but I still have to live with them. ( Otherwise VMI and The Citadel would still be all male). 70 years ago the case would never have been brought because in that time the idea of women attending military colleges would have been dismissed out of hand. The Constitution is not being subverted-what the American people accept as right and wrong has changed and will continue to change. Short of the arrival of the Prince of Peace ( which is not a democracy in any form-but a true one man rule) , you have an imperfect arrangement that seems to somehow survive.; 18:30
Skippy-san said...: <span>Nothing like a good challenge:

Free-Speech? Lots of case law-including Citizens United which upheld free speech for rich corporations. We also should not forget any of the the various decisions holding up the right to post stupid ideas on the Internet. ( Like the idea that the US is turning socialist).

Right to bear arms? Overturned DC's gun control law. Plus-for a country that is robbing you of your guns, we live in a country where people go to Starbucks packing heat ( In some states).

Amendment 9 and 10? Try going back to Article 1 Section 8-powers have been specifically given to Congress to pass laws promoting and regulating commerce. They have survived for the most part Constitutional challenges on those grounds.

As for your last statement-well that is why people are up in arms about Arizona's law.

Besides-what is it that you would offer as an alternative? There are three branches of government, not two-and the Supreme Court is what it is. The President appoints justices-the Senate advises and consents. ( or doesn't). That is how our system is supposed to work. They had appointed judges even back in the 1800's. I hate to break it to you-but its been that way for over 200 years. I mean, I have Supreme Court decisions I disagree with-but I still have to live with them. ( Otherwise VMI and The Citadel would still be all male). 70 years ago the case would never have been brought because in that time the idea of women attending military colleges would have been dismissed out of hand. The Constitution is not being subverted-what the American people accept as right and wrong has changed and will continue to change. Short of the arrival of the Prince of Peace ( which is not a democracy in any form-but a true one man rule) , you have an imperfect arrangement that seems to somehow survive.</span>; 18:33
UltimaRatioRegis said...: Free expression? Tell the kids who wore US flags to school and were sent home. Or the people who would like the Tem Commandments displayed but see instead footbaths for Muslims put in courtesy of the taxpayer.

Insurance companies cannot compete across state lines because of Federal regulation. In violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Which insurance companies a state can certify is up to the STATE, not the Federal government. And the regulation of commerce does not include inhibiting competition without justification.

Taxing CEO pay at a higher rate above a certain amount is what drove these stock-option compensation packages that cause so much heartburn. Federal tax regulation. Violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Forcing Americans to buy a product (health insurance) violates the Ninth Amendment as another abuse of the power to regulate commerce.

You better have a thick rug to try and prove that illegal immigrants are protected from arrest and deportment under the 14th Amendment.

What in place of the current "system"? Judges who do their jobs in the Judicial and don't actively try and make the laws. A legislature that does its job and makes laws, the fewer the better. An Executive that doesn't berate the Judicial in a SOTU address for a decision he doesn't agree with. The Chief Justice doesn't publicly chide the Executive for actions within its authority that he doesn't agree with.

How about a system that controls entitlement spending (some $3.1 trillion) instead looking to shave the 24% ($700 billion) that makes up Defense spending.

Nobody said anything about appointed judges being the problem. Activist appointed judges who obviate the Legislative are a problem.

For starters...; 19:33
UltimaRatioRegis said...: <span>Free expression? Tell the kids who wore US flags to school and were sent home. Or the people who would like the Tem Commandments displayed but see instead footbaths for Muslims put in courtesy of the taxpayer.

Insurance companies cannot compete across state lines because of Federal regulation. In violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Which insurance companies a state can certify is up to the STATE, not the Federal government. And the regulation of commerce does not include inhibiting competition without justification.

Taxing CEO pay at a higher rate above a certain amount is what drove these stock-option compensation packages that cause so much heartburn. Federal tax regulation. Violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Forcing Americans to buy a product (health insurance) violates the Ninth Amendment as another abuse of the power to regulate commerce.

You better have a thick rug to try and prove that illegal immigrants are protected from arrest and deportation under the 14th Amendment.

What in place of the current "system"? Judges who do their jobs in the Judicial and don't actively try and make the laws. A legislature that does its job and makes laws, the fewer the better. An Executive that doesn't berate the Judicial in a SOTU address for a decision he doesn't agree with. The Chief Justice doesn't publicly chide the Executive for actions within its authority that he doesn't agree with.

How about a system that controls entitlement spending (some $3.1 trillion) instead looking to shave the 24% ($700 billion) that makes up Defense spending.

Nobody said anything about appointed judges being the problem. Activist appointed judges who obviate the Legislative are a problem.

For starters...</span>; 22:55

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)