Who Cares If Its Unconstitutional?

We’re in deep trouble, folks, when people with this woman’s mindset have control of our government. She has let us know exactly what she thinks about our Constitution, and she has no problem publicly spitting on it.

Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.

“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”

The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a “false cure” that would be “particularly cruel” to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.

Rather than working within the bounds of the law and their constituents’ civil rights, Ms. Payne thinks she can just ignore them at will. Who cares about this thing called the Constitution of the United States. She thinks she should be able to pass whatever laws she wants whenever she wants. As far as she’s concerned, her good intentions are all that matter, the Constitution be damned.

Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

If only the Democrats believed in the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. No, instead they we get this blatant runaround in trying to get one more Democrat vote in Congress, regardless of the constitutional restriction against it:

A bill giving the District its first full seat in Congress cleared the House yesterday, marking the city’s biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.

Democrats on the House floor burst into applause, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) grabbed the arms of the District’s nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, as the 241 to 177 vote was announced.

The legislation, sponsored by Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would add two seats to the House: one for the overwhelmingly Democratic District and another for the next state in line to pick up a representative, Republican-leaning Utah.

Although the bill was fashioned as a political compromise, only 22 Republicans supported it, including one from Utah. All but six Democrats present voted for it.

Several Republicans contended that the bill violated the constitutional requirement that House representatives come from states.

“The Constitution is clear. Let’s follow it or amend it,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who brandished a poster with constitutional quotes during the debate.

Why do we know this is a cynical attempt to get around the constitution? Well, back 30 years or so an actual constitutional amendment was proposed aroudn the same thing:

Supporters called the bill’s passage their biggest victory since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give the city two senators and a House representative. The amendment died after failing to win passage by enough states. The current legislation would not give the District senators.

And knowing that they would never get a constitutional amendment passed this time tiehr – the response is to try and just to it legislatively. Of course, it didn’t pass with a veto-proof majority, the Senate Republicans have said they will filibuster it, and they can’t

But this little episode is just priceless:

During the floor debate, several Republicans waved copies of the Constitution as they said the bill violated the intentions of the founding fathers. Taking pains to emphasize that they were not against voting rights, they urged taking a different route to give the District a full House seat: ceding the non-federal portion of the city back to Maryland.

That prompted an angry riposte from Norton.

“If you believe in democracy, I suggest you ask the state of Maryland before you cede back anything,” she declared, waving a finger.

Replied Gohmert: “I’m shocked at the inference Maryland thinks so little of the people of the District of Columbia they wouldn’t want them.”

Maryland and D.C. officials have made it clear that they are not interested in having the District attached to its neighbor.

So Maryland doesn’t want them after all eh? Who wouldn’t want a place that has a crimial problem just slightly higher than East Timor? Or is it just that the power-grab by the DC officials has the support of those who don’t actually want the Constitution observed?

Its just like this whole push to legislate the electoral college out of existence. Maryland has already passed legilsation that would give all their electoral votes to the winner of the total popular vote – not the vote of the state itself. So they are in tune with this whole “we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution” thing already.

Come The Revolution – Legislature

Not wanting to leave our fine Congress alone, the revolution will approve the following constitutional amendment.


Point 1 – Primacy of the Constitution

The Congress of the United States may not create any legislation which does not cite its constitutional basis.

Point 2 – Legislative Confirmation Required for any Executive Rules and Regulations

All rules or regulations proposed by the executive in implementing any law must receive by direct vote a majority of members of both Houses of Congress before they can made effective.

Point 3 – Sunset of Rules and Regulations

All rules and regulations proposed by the executive and receiving legislative approval shall be subject to legislative review and approval within every 5 year period from the time of their initial legislative approval. Any such rules and regulations not receiving a majority vote of members of both Houses of Congress shall become null and void.

Point 4 – Legislative Term Limits

Anyone may serve a total of 20 years in either or both Houses of Congress. Upon reaching the 20 year service limit the member shall be automatically retired and replaced through an election as legislated by their representative State.


Summary – if you can’t give a constitutional reason for your legislation then it doesn’t belong. And this includes determining how much water can go down a toliet with one flush, deciding victimhood status based on how you want to have sex, and other such nonsense. The Legislature has to stand up and say what is the law and what isn’t – not hide behind executive rules and regulations. They also have to stand up and say that whatever was good 5 years ago is still justified. And after 20 years of messing about they need to be gone.

Come The Revolution – Legal System

So in the revolution that is coming to the United States, one thing that cries out for a complete makeover is the legal system. The last 50 years have shown just how badly the system has performed. And I’m talking about the federal system right now – so here’s the main points I propose for a constitutional amendment to reform the legal system in the United States:

Point 1 – Primacy of the Legislature

While we are are nation of laws, the laws are created by our representatives in a republican system. The primacy of the people and their will is superior to any other branch of government. In recognition of this fact, any legal precedent or ruling can be permanently overturned and made null and void with a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. Such action cannot be subjected to any further judicial review and any precedents in the legal system based on the overridden decision will be null and void.

Point 2 – Primacy of the United States

No judicial ruling in the Federal courts of the United States can cite or use as support any law or precedent from outside the United States. Any law, organization, or jurisdiction claiming primacy over that of the United States has absolutely no standing within the Federal court system, and all use of such is permanently prohibited.

While the United States may enter into treaties with foreign government and organizations as approved by the Senate as defined in the constitution; and while the United States through such treaties may constrain its actions internationally; no laws or rulings from any international body or government will apply in the United States court system unless enacted into law through the regular action of both Houses of the United States Congress.

Point 3 – Voting on Nominees

Without regard to any existing rules of the Senate, the nominees of the President for any Federal judicial appointment shall be entitled to confirmation vote by the entire Senate.

Point 4 – Judicial Tenure

Federal judges shall serve a term of no more than 20 years total at any level of the United States judicial system. This term does not in any way limit the ability of the legislature to investigate, impeach, and convict a judges as specified elsewhere in the Constitution. This will not affect any sitting judges who received appointment prior to the approval of this amendment.


So to sum up – the courts are not supreme, the people through their elected representatives hold ultimate sovereignty (with safeguards to prevent the rule of the mob). The courts of the US are ruled ONLY by the laws of the US – no the United Nations or global empathy or any such slime. No hiding – an up or down vote on nominees is guaranteed. And judges are no longer immortal kings over us.