Lists
The feds selectively not enforcing laws.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 am
“The United States SHALL…protect the States against invasion…” (Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution) That is, in the words of Constitution wordsmith, James Madison, one of the “few and defined delegated powers” of the Federal Gov’t. Its continuing refusal to do so, is at best flagranat dereliction of duty (which gets the rest of us with a job fired) and at a time when the “war on terror” continues, undefended borders, appeasement and accommodation of the invaders amounts to “give aid and comfort to enemies” which is “treason” according to Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 am
“Of the weapons that could be traced, roughly 80 percent came from the United States, according to Mexican ambassador Arturo Sarukhan. ”
Of course they never say how many weapons COULD be traced. Just that most of them are from the US. So it could be four out of five weapons and they’d still be technically correct! Yes I know it’s more than that.
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
And one of the proposed solutions by Sec of State Clinton and Atty Gen Holder is to further restrict or deny the right of the people in the U.S. to keep and bear arms.
Only your enemy wants you disarmed!
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I love how selectively people get upset about the concept of not enforcing every law. When kids get jailed for “sexting”, the cops/lawyers (executive branch) are failing to exercise judgement. When it’s illegal immigration, suddenly selective enforcement is a problem.
The executive branch, from police up to the President, are only supposed to enforce laws actually on the books. They are also supposed to exercise judgement and not enforce them if they are bad law, or just are excessive in some case. The Constitution says the Executive Branch is supposed to determine how to enforce the law; not enforcing one is a form of “how”, and it serves as a check against Congress.
Anyone that honestly wants every law on the books to be enforced is delusional. It’s understandable to be upset about which laws they choose to not enforce. But don’t pretend that selective enforcement is really some big problem…unless you like being fined for ridiculous 100+ year old laws that haven’t been scrubbed from the books.
August 2nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
The example Joe uses has only one outcome: kill the chief of police. He threatened you, you eliminated the threat.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
“…unless you like being fined for ridiculous 100+ year old laws that haven’t been scrubbed from the books.”–Laughingdog
That’s fine, but “the United States SHALL protect the States against invasion..” (Article IV, Section 4)
When the basic Constitutionally mandated duty to defend our own country from an ongoing invasion is being refused and the proposed solution is to violate the Bill of Rights, that is a matter of dereliction of duty and goes to the point of “treason” by “giving aid and comfort to enemies” according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Constitution. “Are you kidding?” — N. Pelosi
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:26 am
The executive branch, from police up to the President, are only supposed to enforce laws actually on the books.
Really? The EXECUTIVE branch enforces the law? Who knew?