A congressman asks for moment of silence on House floor for jobs lost by Cap-n-Tax.

[literatim]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Gd4zIrpr8z

[anaconda]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Gd4zIrpr8z


That's great. But it might not be constitutional. RP probably called someone on his cell phone during that moment.

[Dr.3D]

That's great. But it might not be constitutional. RP probably called someone on his cell phone during that moment.

A moment of silence may be considered a time for contemplation and deep thought. I don't see how it could possibly not be constitutional.

[literatim]

That's great. But it might not be constitutional. RP probably called someone on his cell phone during that moment.

In what way is a moment of silence not constitutional?

[anaconda]

A moment of silence may be considered a time for contemplation and deep thought. I don't see how it could possibly not be constitutional.

Not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. We're paying them to work.:p

On a more serious note, someone like a Ron Paul might object to displays of opinion generated rituals among the legislators. It really has nothing to do with making legislation. I doubt if any member of Congress has been instructed by a constituent to represent them in the halls of Congress by offering a moment of silence. Plus it's hypocritical as hell. These bastards get us in to these messes by appropriating Fed generated borrowings and then they have the audacity to offer a "moment of silence" because they killed the economy?

[literatim]

Not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. We're paying them to work.:p

There is no authorization for them to breath either. They are our slaves after all. /sarcasm

[powerofreason]

Not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. We're paying them to work.:p

Whats so special about the constitution? Its just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html)

libertarian ethics > crusty old document

[anaconda]

Whats so special about the constitution? Its just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html)

'Quaint."

[literatim]

Whats so special about the constitution? Its just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html)

libertarian ethics > crusty old document

You and the globalists have the same opinion: the Constitution is just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

Ironically, that 'crusty old piece of paper' is the only thing between you and a concentration camp.

[powerofreason]

You and the globalists have the same opinion: the Constitution is just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

Ironically, that 'crusty old piece of paper' is the only thing between you and a concentration camp.

Really? The constitution is not in force, so I don't know why you'd say that. Support the constitution when its right, oppose it when its wrong. And oppose arbitrary authority.

Who could disagree with that? (besides constitution humpers of course)

[Dr.3D]

Really? The constitution is not in force, so I don't know why you'd say that. Support the constitution when its right, oppose it when its wrong. And oppose arbitrary authority.

Who could disagree with that? (besides constitution humpers of course)

Well, for something that isn't in force, the courts sure do spend a lot of time trying to determine if something is Constitutional.

[powerofreason]

Well, for something that isn't in force, the courts sure do spend a lot of time trying to determine if something is Constitutional.

They fail pretty terribly at it don't they? How many laws violate the 10th amendment? Care to count? How about the 4th?

[powerofreason]

Of course, such a situation as we have today is inevitable because of the monopoly on law and order the current State holds. Its not because "the people are stupid" or "people don't care." If you do feel that way, you have something major in common with all dictators and tyrants throughout history.

[literatim]

Really? The constitution is not in force, so I don't know why you'd say that. Support the constitution when its right, oppose it when its wrong. And oppose arbitrary authority.

Who could disagree with that? (besides constitution humpers of course)

Constitution humpers? What diplomatic language you have there.

Who says the Constitution is not in force? You? Arbitrary authority is that power which exists outside what is granted by the Constitution. It is natural to oppose it. If I oppose the constitution when its wrong, I will do so through amending the constitution.

[powerofreason]

Constitution humpers? What diplomatic language you have there.

Who says the Constitution is not in force? You? Arbitrary authority is that power which exists outside what is granted by the Constitution. It is natural to oppose it. If I oppose the constitution when its wrong, I will do so through amending the constitution.

Why is the Constitutional system legitimate?

[powerofreason]

Why is the Constitutional system legitimate?

I'll answer.

Its not.

Reason: it does not follow the Non Aggression Principle. Why must it abide by the NAP, you say? Well thats simple. Not abiding by the NAP will result in avoidable suffering of some kind. Violations of the NAP (murder, assault, fraud, theft, etc.) are anti-social/anti-life and ought not be tolerated or endorsed to any extent by rational human beings. Ethics are not subjective and are discoverable by simple reasoning and observation. All governments violate the NAP because they are funded by simple thievery backed up by the threat of pure violence. Theres a better way, called freedom, and if you study history at all you'd see that it works.

[slothman]

Ironically, that 'crusty old piece of paper' is the
only thing between you and a concentration camp.

It didn't help the Japanese during WWII.

[South Park Fan]

These constitutionalists really love their circular arguments don't they? If the Constitution is currently enforced today, then why are they part of a movement that seeks to bring government back to its constitutional restrictions?

[Brassmouth]

Whats so special about the constitution? Its just a crusty old piece of paper signed by people long dead, thus making it a dead document.

No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html)

libertarian ethics > crusty old document

+∞



Ironically, that 'crusty old piece of paper' is the only thing between you and a concentration camp.

No, the only thing between me and a concentration camp is the (dying) ember of individualism that still exists within the minds and hearts of the masses.

How strange that you think a piece of paper can protect me. Have you seen it fight crime before? Can it fly? Is it weakened by Kryptonite? :rolleyes:

[literatim]

These constitutionalists really love their circular arguments don't they? If the Constitution is currently enforced today, then why are they part of a movement that seeks to bring government back to its constitutional restrictions?

So it is either enforced or it isn't? There is no gray area within this absolutism of yours?



No, the only thing between me and a concentration camp is the (dying) ember of individualism that still exists within the minds and hearts of the masses.

How strange that you think a piece of paper can protect me. Have you seen it fight crime before? Can it fly? Is it weakened by Kryptonite? :rolleyes:

So when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gitmo prisoners, it was because an ember of individualism exists? Last I checked it was because they interpreted the constitution.

[Brassmouth]

So it is either enforced or it isn't? There is no gray area within this absolutism of yours?

How the fuck do you "kind of" enforce something? You do or you don't. You're free or you aren't.


So when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gitmo prisoners, it was because an ember of individualism exists? Last I checked it was because they interpreted the constitution.

The State is only as powerful as the populace allows it to be. The existence of a piece of paper has nothing to do with that. The reason you don't see tanks rolling down the street (yet) is because the State's grand illusion would be shattered. Americans may be compliant fools, but they have enough of an idea of freedom to revolt if that started happening (I hope).

North Korea, however, is a better example. The people there literally have no conception of individual rights. They are enslaved at gunpoint and are indoctrinated into a State "ideology" (read: religion) called Juche.

If Kim Jong-il instated the US Constitution in North Korea tomorrow, would anything change there? Absolutely not. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

[Knightskye]

He could have had a moment of personal silence. Just use a minute of his allotted time and not said anything.

[powerofreason]

The State is only as powerful as the populace allows it to be. The existence of a piece of paper has nothing to do with that. The reason you don't see tanks rolling down the street (yet) is because the State's grand illusion would be shattered. Americans may be compliant fools, but they have enough of an idea of freedom to revolt if that started happening (I hope).

North Korea, however, is a better example. The people there literally have no conception of individual rights. They are enslaved at gunpoint and are indoctrinated into a State "ideology" (read: religion) called Juche.

If Kim Jong-il instated the US Constitution in North Korea tomorrow, would anything change there? Absolutely not. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Absolutely. The ONLY thing restricting the State is its fear of losing legitimacy in the eyes of the people. It will break any "rule" or "restriction" if it thinks there will be no corresponding loss of legitimacy. And democracy/"representative" government is the best thing that ever happened to the State. A whole new fat layer of legitimacy to cover up all the death, destruction, and general human suffering caused by it.

Stop blaming "the people" (the victims). Blame the system. Blame the State. Stop wasting all your time and money on politics, and engage in counter-economics to speed its implosion.