Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Fine. You want to play rough?

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

--Article Five of the Constitution of the United States.

"On the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States"

If thirty-eight States have a case of the hips regarding ObamaCare, and given that Congress is apparently in a mood to ram stuff down the throat of the electorate, it occurs to Your Humble Correspondent that it just might be time to return the favour.

Someone check my math, but isn't thirty-eight just a bit more than the three-quarters of fifty States required to ram the next Amendment to the Constitution of the United States far enough up the Federal Government that they'd choke on the hair at the back of their throats?

So, how does:

"No person shall be mandated by law to purchase any goods or service, at any time"

sound for the 28th Amendment?

Or shall we go for the poetic justice route, and hoist them on their own petards by way of:

"Only excepting such limited protection as offered by Article One, Section Six, Congress is hereby prohibited from exempting its Members from each, any, and all effects, duties or obligations rendered upon any citizen, or citizens, by any Law, Tax, or other action passed by Congress."

What do you think, Gentle Readers? Is it time to remind Congress who they work for by beating them firmly about the head and shoulders with a Constitutional amendment?

Discuss.

LawDog

63 comments:

Firehand said...

Or a bucket of tar and an old pillow.

In a few cases, perhaps a flagrum?

Over at Eternity Road he had a nice piece pointing out that the people in Congress have mostly lost all respect for and fear of the public, and need to be firmly reminded of both.

Vanshar said...

So, how exactly is a duly elected congress, voting on legislation, ramming anything down anyone's throat? Last time I checked, that was called "representative democracy," and I've heard a remarkable like of complaint about it before now. I'm not particularly thrilled about this legislation either, but them's the breaks, majority rule and all that. Also, you'd actually have to get three-quarters of the states to sign it before it goes into affect; two-thirds can only propose it.

Peter said...

I'd vote for both your proposed amendments in a heartbeat! Only problem is, once a Constitutional Convention (CC) gets going, there's no limit to what it might decide. What if a bunch of panty-waisters decide to gut the Second Amendment? A CC can do that . . . and there's not a damn thing we can do to stop it, except try to reverse the change by calling another CC (which may or may not do what we want it to do).

A CC is a double-edged sword . . .

Anonymous said...

No. Because...

1. There're too many damned C.A.'s already...the entire document is diluted as a result. Leave what's left of it alone.

2. All but those that are convenient are ignored, why should we think any further will be different?

3. It's T time; peaceful, and if necessary unpeaceful revolt is at hand NOW; the time frame for what you speak of is measured in years if not decades.

Al Terego

Kevin said...

Discuss.

I already have.

No thank you. I have no faith that a Constitutional Convention wouldn't be orchestrated by the SEIU and its fellow travelers.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard anyone except a few commenters with reading comprehension difficulty say a word about a Constitutional Convention. The Law Dog did mention "Constitutional Amendment" though.

And Vanshar? You need to go back to the Fifth Grade and read up on what sort of Government we are really supposed to have. We are, or at least, are supposed to be a Representative Republic. You might want an arithmetic refresher, too.

The democrat majority needs to be reminded of that as well. Within living memory we had a demonstration of what a true democracy can do. If we went that route, a simple majority could decide that perhaps it is time to recognize that persons whose names begin with the letter "V" are enemies of the State and further, are not quite human, so must be rounded up and eliminated by any means available. Majority rules, and all that. Live with it. Or not.

Gerry N.

Vanshar said...

Wow, Gerry, nice vitriol. And where was my arithmetic error, by the way? You are correct about the "republic" vs. "democracy" thing, however, my apologies. My point is not that our government is awesome, but more that I hear a lot of whining from people who didn't say a damn thing when the Patriot Act was passed, for instance. I don't have an issue with people who don't like how the government functions; I dislike people who only complain about it when the injustice doesn't break their way.
That said, if you want to develop a system where a simple majority cannot pass legislation (I'd be a fan, actually), you will need...a Constitutional Amendment! Funny that.

Will said...

My answer is the same as the answer to this question:
What is 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: IT'S A START!

Will said...

BTW, you can't remove the 2nd from the Bill of Rights. It was required to get the Constitution accepted. IIRC, a few states would automatically leave the Union according to their own documents if the Constitution is altered. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of it. The added on Amendments are not.

Mike said...

Vanshar said...,
So, how exactly is a duly elected congress, voting on legislation, ramming anything down anyone's throat?


Because Congress cannot MANDATE that I make any sort of purchase, no matter what it may be.

'Dog,

I think your two suggestions would look right nice as the 28th and 29th Amendments...

phlegmfatale said...

For what it's worth, I searched two of my favourite blogs-- this one and View From the Porch-- for posts containing the word "unconstitutional." I expect anonymous will be disappointed to peruse those search results and see that the bulk of LawDog's and Tam's posts containing the word "unconstitutional" occurred duing the GWB administration, rather than the present farce.


http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/search?q=unconstitutional

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=unconstitutional

p.s. - LawDog for president, because he'd do what he said he'd do in that final post on that list pm 11/10/2006. :)

wolfwalker said...

Lawdog:

"No person shall be mandated by law to purchase any goods or service, at any time"

I like it.

Unfortunately, it has holes that the malicious could exploit. What about state-mandated purchases of auto liability insurance? What about mandated safety devices in cars, which increase the price of those cars? How do you reconcile this amendment with the federal law that requires doctors and hospitals to treat emergency cases? Patients treated in emergency rooms do still get billed.

For that matter, how do you reconcile this amendment with the courts' routine duty of forcing individuals to pay up for services they've received from a plumber or carpenter or electrician?

There are even orcs who would claim that taxes to support schools, police, fire, etc. is a "purchase of goods or service" and therefore a violation of your amendment. And there are judges stupid enough to buy it.

wolfwalker said...

Lest anyone misunderstand, I LIKE the idea of Lawdog's amendment, and I HATE the idea of being forced to buy health insurance. Even if I could afford it, I'd still hate it. I simply am scared of the consequences of a badly worded amendment, and trying to foresee the ways in which the orcs and their lawyers could manipulate it.

Anonymous said...

WolfWalker,
Stop for a moment. Take a deep breath.
Most (not all) of what you're talking about are items mandated at levels BELOW the Federal, ie, state and local. Perfectly legit.

The remainder that you mention (auto safety devices & hospital/ doctors), the Feds have no right and/or authority to be diktating there anyway (except such as we have blindly surrendered, but should take back).

Ditto for Medicare, MedicAid, education, energy (I leave it to you to add to this list).

B Woodman
III-per

Turk Turon said...

Amen, Brother!

Usually just the threat of a ConCon is enough to make even a reluctant Congress propose a Constitutional Amendment to remedy the complaint.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Let's see. First, LawDog: your two ideas strike me more as the two clauses of the next Amendment and less like two different suggestions. I like that mo betta.

Next, Vanshar? Uhhh... Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.



tweaker

Anonymous said...

Amendment 30: No person shall receive compensation or benefit in any form from the federal government for a period greater than 15 years, except for active duty military and military reserve who shall receive pay and benefit commensurate with rank for the full period of their service and retirement benefit as established.

Amendment 31: No person shall serve greater than two terms, or portions thereof, in any federal position subject to election or appointment; such service renders said person ineligible to receive compensation or benefit in any form from the federal government upon termination of elected or appointed service.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"I haven't heard anyone except a few commenters with reading comprehension difficulty say a word about a Constitutional Convention. The Law Dog did mention "Constitutional Amendment" though."

Gerry, you should re-read the original post, including LawDog's quotation of Article Five. Only Congress can directly propose a specific Amendment. The State Legislatures can only apply to Congress for a Constitutional Convention.

Since LawDog is talking specifically about the States calling for these Amendments, it would have to be by a Constitutional Convention - unless you somehow see the same Congress that gave us this "health care" abomination proposing the Amendments that would nullify a major aspect of it.

LawDog,

While I really like the idea behind your proposed Amendment (though I agree with Wolfwalker that the wording may need some fine-tuning), Peter is right about the dangers of a CC - once it's started, the only limit that is set by the Constitution is the number of states needed to ratify whatever Amendments are proposed. It could potentially devastate our entire form of government. (Just one "worst case" scenario? Look at the People's Republic of Haven from David Weber's Honorverse novels - a hereditary government put in place in exchange for giving the people a "basic living stipend". We seem to be slowly moving toward a variant of that as it is - constantly reelecting legislators for near lifetime terms in exchange for entitlements. Look at Ted Kennedy (47 years in the Senate, died in office), or Strom Thurmond (49 years in the Senate, retired at 100 years old) for examples of that.) A CC could be a good thing, or it could destroy the republic.

Jeff the Baptist said...

Anonymous's Amendments 30 & 31 seem like a great way to a have a government completely staffed by idiots top to bottom.

D.W. Drang said...

Also, repeal Amendments 16 and 17. And I'm not sure about 23 and 24...

As a side note, I see at Wikipedia that there are still proposed amendments listed as "pending before states" from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries!

PopsPhotos said...

Jeff, That would be different from what we have now?

I am afraid of a CC for the reasons stated already. The convention which gave us what we now call the Constitution of the United States of America came about because a number of States wanted some fine tuning of how they could increase the tax revenue of the central government.

What they got was a total re-write, from top to bottom.

We do need to change some basic things about the way we run this place. However, I am afraid the people who would be in charge of making those changes during a Constitutional Convention would not be as wise, learned and altruistic as those who did such the first time.

The Bad Yogi said...

You aren't being forced to buy health insurance, you are being threatened with having to pay a new tax if you don't.

BIG difference. Settled law, and all that.

Anyone for a READING party, as to what is actually IN the law?

Phelps said...

What if a bunch of panty-waisters decide to gut the Second Amendment? A CC can do that . . . and there's not a damn thing we can do to stop it, except try to reverse the change by calling another CC (which may or may not do what we want it to do).

Actually, there is something we can do about that, and it is exactly why the Second Amendment is there in the first place.

whamprod said...

Vanshar said: "So, how exactly is a duly elected congress, voting on legislation, ramming anything down anyone's throat? Last time I checked, that was called "representative democracy," and I've heard a remarkable like of complaint about it before now."

True enough, but until now, you didn't have a majority of Congress willfully ignoring the majority of The People. In this particular case, you definitely do — as the party in majority is in thrall to its most radical elements, and completely out of step with the very people who actually voted them in.

The voters who elected those cynics are not getting the representation they voted for, and they are definitely getting taxed without that representation. And it is all the more galling that Congressmen continue to vote themselves expensive exceptions so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions, and that is morally repugnant by any ethical standard.

Lawdog, I like both of your amendments. Somebody get a rope...

wolfwalker said...

B. Woodman wrote: "Most (not all) of what you're talking about are items mandated at levels BELOW the Federal, ie, state and local. Perfectly legit."

Not if Lawdog's amendment as worded gets passed. Remember the Incorporation Doctrine. All constitutional rules that bind the federal government also bind state and local governments, by way of the 14th Amendment.

Da Curly Wolf said...

The 13th Amendment reads:
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, Shall exsist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

THAT is what that goddamn proviso in the bill FORCING everyone to either buy healthcare or pay a fine IS. Financial chains. An chains of slavery, be they literal or financial are NOT to be borne.
I think that, the violation of the 10th amendment, and all bills which build revenue must originate in the house.. pretty much covers it.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Actually, there is something we can do about that, and it is exactly why the Second Amendment is there in the first place.

Yea, this man clanketh upon walking.



tweaker

Da Curly Wolf said...

"Anyone for a READING party, as to what is actually IN the law?"

Yogi at just under 3000 pages..that should take us a little while, several days at least. Personally I'd rather use it, and our supposed representatives as kindling for a bonfire.
*only problem with mentioning fire is it makes me hungry. I must now go fire up the grill.*

Crucis said...

I'd like to add the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments as well. Let's put Senators back under state control rather than as party elitists. That alone would kill the Senators-for-life that we now have in some states.

Oh, Vanshar, when our representatives won't represent us, it's no longer a democracy. The majority of the people don't want this piece of trash that was passed. That's not majority rule by the citizens, now is it?

Pappadave said...

I'm not so afraid of a CC with the proviso that I wouldn't want THIS Congress to initiate one. They've already shown their disdain for the one we have now. Secondly, it wouldn't become law (a new Constitution or an Amendment) unless 2/3rds of the States approved it and I don't think you could get 2/3rds to agree to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Would it not be better to simply reign in the commerce clause?

Old NFO said...

Yep... Soap box, ballot box, bullet box in that order...

SirBeep said...

How about this to put the feds back to being feds instead of one big state replacement. "The federal government shall have no jurisdiction over an individual, but only in matters of foreign or intra-state matters. No payments may be made to or on behalf of an individual but for payment for goods or services rendered directly to the federal government itself. Taxes must fall equally upon each individual with no exemptions or exclusions. Law enforcement must be done through the local sheriff and only at the discretion of said sheriff. Fines levied on individuals are a matter of law enforcement and thus are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. " Feel free to break it up into a few amendments. oops, forgot one.. Feds should also not be paying states for anything other than goods/services, dont need them using my money to bail out California and my sheriff can make his own case directly for getting new toys, etc..

Gay_Cynic said...

I can support a full-bore Con-Con as a second-to-last resort...the last resort being something I hope never to see in our nation, both because of the innate tragedy and because such adventures so seldom turn out well.

The reason I hesitate about Con-Con is that it's *all the marbles*, and can go horribly rogue. Only one notch less bad than armed rebellion, though both are less bad than a socialist utopia.

I like the Amendment, but we need to win both houses of Congress in fall to get it..or threaten Congress with a con-con and *mean it*.

KBCraig said...

The Bad Yogi hath queried:
Anyone for a READING party, as to what is actually IN the law?

Yeah, good luck with that. I suggest you start with actually finding the law. No, not the bill: that's easy. I'm talking about the actual, final, enrolled/enacted/reconciled law, as written down in the books.

You can't do it, because even though it's been passed by both houses and signed by the president, it's still being modified and voted on.

Before passing Law Dog's amendments, or the other worthy proposals mentioned in the comments, I'd prefer a "Read The Bills" amendment: No bill may be voted on for final passage by either house until 30 days have passed since the last amendment has been approved, and/or the final text has been made available to the public, whichever is greater.

On second thought, I'd also like to see each bill required to cite the specific article of the Constitution that authorizes its passage (and "interstate commerce" doesn't count!)

Tolewyn said...

Here's my question...what the hell does this have to do with healthcare?

"The second of the two bills also presented Obama with another victory, stripping banks and other private lenders of their ability to originate student loans in favor of a system of direct government lending."

We really need to know what else is in this bill and not just the "talking points" that the media is throwing out there to sway public opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

KD5NRH said...

Pops: You're forgetting that at the last Con-Con, there were a lot less states needed to ratify an Amendment. Getting three-quarters of the current states to approve anything would be pretty difficult.

Frankly, I'd expect some delays in ratification of an Amendment declaring water to be wet.

WV: tederr - what happened when Kennedy kept getting elected instead of Nugent.

DeadCenter said...

Vanshar said: "So, how exactly is a duly elected congress, voting on legislation, ramming anything down anyone's throat? Last time I checked, that was called "representative democracy," and I've heard a remarkable like of complaint about it before now."

Vanshar, the Constitution is a RESTRICTION on what those duly elected representatives of the people are allowed to do and NOT do. It is NOT a free pass to do whatever the hell they FEEL like doing just because they have the reigns of power for a time. The commerce clause and the general welfare clause are NOT free passes, regardless of what some elitist control freak says about them. When politicians step out of that cage, Demshovik OR Repulicrat, they deserve to be slapped down... HARD.
And as for the Patriot Act, there were PLENTY of real honest to goodness patriots who screamed about that too. They just didn't get very much press because of all the sheeple bleating to 'feel secure', and that INCLUDED a majority of liberal anti-Bushies.

cjboyles said...

Jeff the Baptist wrote "Anonymous's Amendments 30 & 31 seem like a great way to a have a government completely staffed by idiots top to bottom."

I fail to see how that would be a material difference with what we have now.

The Bad Yogi said...

Good point about not being able to find the exact bill, but the bulk of it is availabe, as are all the amendments.

it's not even close to 3000 pages:closer to 2300, including all amendments, and almost 80% of that is procedural. The actual parts we all care about amount to about 200-250 pages of not-very-densely written text, or about as much as a small novel. We should be able to get through it in a couple of evenings. When I read an earlier version, it took me about 8 hours.= to get through it the first time and a couple of days to go back and forth through it.

Not to say that the implications are obvious, lawyers will be arguing over it for years if not decades. But the basic notion of "tax if you don't buy insurance" is clear and up front. And NONE of the arguments against the bill were about this part, primarily because that's how a lot of bills are written.

Talking about violent overthrow of the government because some people want to protect some of the more vulnerable members of our society is strange to me.

Anonymous said...

"Only excepting such limited protection as offered by Article One, Section Six, Congress is hereby prohibited from exempting its Members from each, any, and all effects, duties or obligations rendered upon any citizen, or citizens, by any Law, Tax, or other action passed by Congress."

Good, but how about extending that to ALL elected or appointed members of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. This would lessen (never "eliminate") the lobbying by govt employees for bank-busting benefits.

Antibubba

capitalGGeek said...

Any bill presented to either house of congress must be in its final form and read in its entirety before the assembled body prior to voting on it. Members who are not present for the reading or a period thereof are automatically recorded as a NO vote.

Bills passed by both houses are to be read to the president prior to his signing them into law. Bills may be vetoed at any point during the reading.

Jess said...

I think all amendments are moot as long as Congresscritters are not prosecuted for sedition, and maybe, treason. Written laws mean nothing if they're ignored by those that swear to uphold the same.

As far as the peanut gallery comments about representative government, they ignore their constituents, so there isn't any representative government. It's time they did. It's, also, time they're held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. BUT, First repeal the recently passed monstrosity! Also, reiterate in this amendment that the US Constitution is the FINAL and ultimate law of the land and that ANY treaty which contraindicates this is, ipso facto, null & void.

And fire the mis-representatives who dare act otherwise!

Ulises from CA

Billll said...

How about:

The total annual expenditures of the Congress of the United States shall not, under any circumstances, exceed 17% of the national GDP for the immediately preceding year.


Method of collection is left as an exercise for the elected. Note that they cannot borrow extra money, and if they want more, they need to improve the GDP in order to get the extra money NEXT year. Forces them to become capitalists, doesn't it.

John P. said...

Let's rock and roll my friends. Git er done! Where do I sign up. I am at the point now of sending money to frickin Illinois, or Florida, or Massachusetts, in support of candidates I "hope" will help us get back the last inch of our freedom they just snatched from us. Every election at the federal level is now a national election, you know. AND, I joined my local GOP. AND, I got elected alternate delegate to the Texas state GOP convention where I hope we will take up the topic of this post.

The Freeholder said...

I'm for number 2.

Derius Thoran said...

To all of those stating that an Article V Convention could go horribly wrong, or blow out of proportion, or even change the face of the United States, you are mistaken.

Congress does not have the right to limit the scope of the Convention, but the petitioning states DO.

If 34 states petition congress for an Article V Convention, they can state, in plain language that the Convention is being called ONLY to address (insert subject here) and NOTHING else. The states have the power to limit the scope in that capacity, so it cannot get out of control. There is no danger with it. That and the fact that it takes a 3/4 vote afterward to ratify any proposed amendment is its own check and balance.

We need a Convention. We need to deal specifically with the socialist takeover of our country, and the out of control spending. We need to deal with the mounds and mounds of back breaking TAXES just forced on us, as well as all the other hidden venom inside this "health care" Trojan horse.

We need to bind the hands and shut the mouths of Congress, and remind them in no uncertain terms WHO THEY WORK FOR. Take the power they have usurped and return it to the American People. And then politely let them know that from henceforth, such will never again be tolerated, and by the way, if your 8 years are up, have fun working at Wal-mart.

Usually the threat of a Convention is enough. Without it, we have no power. They WILL not listen, they have proven it, and it will only get worse from here if we do not STOP IT NOW.

CarlS said...

"Vanshar" quoted majority rule as the final arbniter of law, both bad and good. Not so; perhaps we need additional civics courses. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the rule of the majority can not overrule the law as written in our Constitution.

Mad Jack said...

From Anonymous: 2. All but those that are convenient are ignored, why should we think any further will be different?

The eternal argument about gun control and the second amendment invariably hinges around understanding. "Don't they understand?" is the question asked of control proponents. The real answer is that they understand just fine. They don't care. Allow me to reiterate: They understand that what they want is a direct violation of the United States Constitution, and they do not care.

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) is supposed to prevent abuses like this, but the USSC has been dysfunctional for years. Since justices are appointed for life, the USSC is going to remain dysfunctional throughout our lifetimes. There is no help from the USSC.

Since our leaders are elected we should be able to turn over the entire government in eight years at the outside. That won't happen, and not necessarily because of differing views among the voters. No, the government won't be turned over because of stupidity and ignorance, including willful ignorance. Anyone reading this who is a Law Enforcement Agent (LEO) or Peace Officer (PO) and who responds to calls from us civilians can attest to the incredible number of just plain stupid and ignorant people who vote these elected gas bags into office. Even if a person is of average intelligence or better, it takes work to remain informed about issues and recent legislation.

Last night the F.B.I., aided and abetted by other federal, State and local law enforcement personnel carried out a series of raids against some type of militia group. No reason has been given as yet, but we're all sure there's a good one. Commercial media is reporting that this group had lots of guns, so that makes it okay.

I've pretty much given up.

Anonymous said...

"I've pretty much given up."

Don't do that, Jack; let me refer you back to my little list:

"3. It's T time; peaceful, and if necessary unpeaceful revolt is at hand NOW; the time frame for what you speak of is measured in years if not decades."

AT

Anonymous said...

Well, requiring vehicle insurance hasn't made us broke, I doubt requiring health insurance will either. Those without health insurance drive up the costs for the rest of us - just like uninsured drivers do. As a matter of fact I would consider it a violation of my rights for someone not having car insurance. That person is driving up my cost for car insurance without my consent, just as an uninsured person is driving up the cost of my health care by not having insurance. I don't want to pay for someone else to receive health care, just as I don't want to pay for an uninsured driver having an accident.

The penalty for driving without insurance is substantial. The fee or tax charged to individuals without health insurance will be substantial. The purpose of both penalties/taxes is to force people to have either insurance. The result is that it drives down the cost for all of us. If you want to pay for uninsured people, go ahead. I'm not and I'm glad this has happened.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

You're not required to buy car insurance if you don't drive. You can also buy insurance that only pays for damage/injury to other people, and choose not to cover yourself. And insurance companies have the ability to choose not to sell coverage to someone with a history of accidents.

This bill means I have to buy insurance even if I never go to the doctor, and there's no option allowed for me to buy only "emergency" coverage.

And, of course, there's the part that will kill the private insurance industry and bankrupt the government - they can't deny you coverage if you're already sick.

Look, the whole concept behind health insurance is gambling. The insurance company is gambling that you won't come down with something that will cost more to treat than you have paid in, and you are gambling that you will. This bill forces them to cover the person they know without a doubt will cost more to treat than they make from the next five people. A company cannot survive doing that.

It's like the government coming to the horse track and forcing you to bet big on the broken-down nag with hoof-rot and a 300 pound jockey when every other horse in the race is a thoroughbred with a clean bill of health and a 75 pound jockey. You're going to lose, every time.

If I were in the insurance industry, I'd be doing everything I can to get out, as fast as possible.

wv: pacon - the pest preakfast food there is.

Anonymous said...

anon: I don't blame you for choosing to remain so; I would be embarrassed too.

I don't doubt that you earnestly believe what you have written, and that the "change" that is afoot is a true awakening.

After all, the tool in the big chair had a lot of help getting there from true believers such as yourself; the mobsters, racists, and media lackeys couldn't do it all by themselves.

There is really nothing to say in the face of such stunning naivety except...God help us.

AT

KD5NRH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KD5NRH said...

Jeff also left out that in most states, you can simply set aside a certain amount of money to cover auto liability; if you never need it, you can hang up the keys and go get your money back. A lot of people save money on health insurance by doing a similar thing; carry catastrophic coverage only, and set aside money for any lesser emergencies. If they never need the emergency fund, they can use it for other types of emergencies. Now they'll be forced to give up that emergency fund.

KD5NRH said...

Nothing to add this round, but the WV was too good to pass up.

WV: obarant - do I need to explain further?

Anonymous said...

You see this is why the founders are such smart guys. Flyover country is about to kick in the teeth of california and the east coast. Now where did my steel toed redwings get off to?

Anonymous said...

I think we all see the chain of events. Vote in november failing that a CC. I pray it doesn't go past that. If it does, know your friends.

Bob A said...

With something like 60% of the electorate against Obama's healthcare bill, and many huge corporations already writing down billions of dollars worth of losses due to the bill's provisions, the Democratic Party will receive a major asswhupping this fall.

And with Obama having turned into an Illinois politician instead of Savior of the Liberal Race, most of the folks who supported him will not only fail to re-elect him, they'll be so turned off by politics that it'll take a generation before anyone's stupid enough to trust another golden-tongued gasbag.

Thoroughly vet the Republican candidates running this fall, and support the ones who (seem to) believe in the Bill of Rights. Then hope for the best.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the damage is done. Unless the health bill-and some other expensive idiocies-is repealed, we are stuck with what Obama has done whether he's re-elected or not.
The question is, why aren't we yelling "Impeachment!"?

Wayne Conrad said...

No, because the referenced (and most) legislation passed by congress is already unconstitutional by virtue of being in excess of the powers granted to congress. If congress will not yield to the constitution now, changing the constitution will not help.

Gay_Cynic said...

Yes. I *LIKE* Option II!!