Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
In the old version, words had specific meanings and they were used carefully. For example, the old Constitution has an article entitled “Article Six”, which talks about, among other things, “oaths” of office.
Although “Article Six” may sound like “Article Sixty” — and “oaths of office” may sound like “oafs of office,” under the old Constitution these words had different meanings.
Modern judges now understand this was foolishness. Under the new Constitution, six can indeed mean sixty, it all depends. If you don’t know how this works or if you haven’t seen a copy of the new Constitution I have included all of it, in full, in the next paragraph:
ARTICLE 1: Judges have the power to make things fair. ARTICLE 2: Judges also have the power to make things good and nice.
That’s it. The judges see this as a tremendous improvement. It makes things simple. Congressmen can be ignored, as can senators. Even the president is just an impotent Twitter Tweeter. All power now resides with the judges, who are tasked with the solemn duty to make things fair — or good and nice, depending on the case.
For example, are the words “cross-dressing murderer” not mentioned in the old Constitution? No bother. They are certainly implied in the new version. This gives modern judges the power to order that a cross-dressing murderer, locked up in prison, is constitutionally entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation.
How, you may ask? Why, under Article 1. Because it seems “fair” to the judge he has the power to order it. Or under Article 2, if the judge thinks it would be “good and nice.”
Not that there are no rules of English Construction in the new Constitution. No, no, no. That is certainly not the case.
Under Article 2 for example, a judge only has the power to order things that are “good AND nice.” If something is only “nice” the judge has no power to issue an order. Of course, he can still issue the same order under Article 1, but only if he thinks it is “fair.” So you see, there are rules of construction after all.
How does the new Constitution work with the old one? I shall explain. If a judge does not have the power to do something, such as banning guns, under the old Constitution, he may then get the power he needs under the new Constitution. But, if he does, he must then mumble some words from the OLD Constitution to justify his power grab.
Justice Breyer showed us how it’s done. He explained that the Second Amendment does not include “the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.” Justice Breyer came to this conclusion under Article 2 of the new Constitution because he doesn’t think guns are “good and nice.” But he then had to mumble some words from the old Constitution about “militias.” And there you go. It’s done. He now has the power to prevent you from keeping a gun in your bedroom. It’s really quite simple.
How, you may ask? Why, under Article 1. Because it seems “fair” to the judge he has the power to order it. Or under Article 2, if the judge thinks it would be “good and nice.”
Not that there are no rules of English Construction in the new Constitution. No, no, no. That is certainly not the case.
Under Article 2 for example, a judge only has the power to order things that are “good AND nice.” If something is only “nice” the judge has no power to issue an order. Of course, he can still issue the same order under Article 1, but only if he thinks it is “fair.” So you see, there are rules of construction after all.
How does the new Constitution work with the old one? I shall explain. If a judge does not have the power to do something, such as banning guns, under the old Constitution, he may then get the power he needs under the new Constitution. But, if he does, he must then mumble some words from the OLD Constitution to justify his power grab.
Justice Breyer showed us how it’s done. He explained that the Second Amendment does not include “the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.” Justice Breyer came to this conclusion under Article 2 of the new Constitution because he doesn’t think guns are “good and nice.” But he then had to mumble some words from the old Constitution about “militias.” And there you go. It’s done. He now has the power to prevent you from keeping a gun in your bedroom. It’s really quite simple.
Tags:
Legislative News
Congressional Quarterly
C-SPAN
Roll Call
Stateline.org
The Hill
Washington Post
Politics Section
Boston Globe
Dallas News
Denver Post
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Stop Island Park Wildlife Overpasses
Seattle Times
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
USA Today
Beltway Buzz
CQ Politics
First Read
The Hotline
The Note
The Page
Washington Wire
Mike Allen's Playbook
Politico
Roll Call
The Hill
CNN Political Ticker
The Swamp
The Fix
Washington Whispers
Fish Bowl DC
Online Political Sites
Alternative Press Index
Capitol Hill Blue
CommonDreams.org
Digg.com Politics
Drudge Report
Political Insider
Political Wire
Politico
PopPolitics
Real Clear Politics
Salon.com
Slate
Stateline.org
TCOT Report
TomPaine.com
US Politics Guide
© 2024 Created by WTPUSA. Powered by