Penn. Democrat: ‘Who Really Cares’ About the Constitution?
Posted on November 25, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
Democrats do not see the Constitution as a limit on their actions. In fact, Democrats don’t see any rules or laws as limits on what they think they can do. They imagine that they can do anything they want no matter what the law says. Democrats are essentially lawless creatures.
Further proof of this came this week in the Pittsburgh City Council during the debate on an unconstitutional gun bill the city was trying to institute. After the lopsided vote was over — with the anti-constitution side winning — Councilwoman Tonya Payne told everyone that would listen that she didn’t care about the U.S. Constitution.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? 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.”
What more can be said? Democrats hate the Constitution, hate the law, and want to rule their constituents by fiat. This is a universal idea in Democrat circles across the country.
» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Constitution, Democrats, Gun Control, Guns, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Socialism, State's Constitution, U.S. Constitution
Trackback URL
Comments
60 Responses to “Penn. Democrat: ‘Who Really Cares’ About the Constitution?”
Leave a Reply
It’s part of the whole socialist mentality. Near as I can tell, socialism became all the rage in post monarchical Europe. The useless nobility needed to new political scheme to set themselves up as a privileged elite without having to actually contribute anything to society.
People who want power without accountability love socialism just like they loved rule by nobility…as long as being “noble” didn’t require any intelligence, character or decency. These are pretty much the same kinds of people you are describing.
Best regards,
Gail S
Oath of Office
Allegheny County Council
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania}
}
County of Allegheny}
I, Tonya Payne, do solemnly swear that I will
support, obey and defend the Constitution of the
United States, the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and the Charter of the County of
Allegheny, and I will discharge the duties of my
office with fidelity. So help me God.
______________________
Tonya Payne
——————————————————————————-
The United States Constitution:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Pennsylvania State Constitution:
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Does Pennsylvania provide for recalling pols?
They all voted for a guy who’s got an Aunt who’s an illegal fugitive alien.
Why couldn’t a U.S. Senator have done something about that. A)Turn her in and help her take the medicine according to the law.
B) Get her legal council, help her to not be on the RUN FROM THE LAW, as it may reflect poorly on him.
or, if you’re Obama and you could give a rats [edited] about the law, c) do nothing. NOTHING.
Last I checked, Republicans don’t care about habeas corpus or privacy rights. I think Dems and Reps both hate the Constitution equally.
Well Alan Smith – we Republicans DO CARE about the rights of the people who were turned to dust on 9/11. If you care so much about the scum sitting at Gitmo – take a trip to ground zero and fall on your knees and pray that God will help you get a soul.
Speaking of illegal aliens, we have a chief executive who took the same oath and also swore to see that the laws are FAITHFULLY executed. Pitiful.
Alan Smith,
I think you stretch a wee bit there.
True about Republicans and habeas corpus. Lincoln suspended it during a time of national emergency. Impeach Lincoln.
I’m just saying, you can’t call out the Democrats on their hatred of the 2nd Amendment unless you call Republicans out on their hatred of privacy rights and habeas corpus. Otherwise it just exposes you as a partisan who really doesn’t care about the Constitution.
Lincoln suspends habeas to save the union.
Bush suspends deportations to save Obama embarassment over his illegal Auntie. What a statesman.
Yes, she is such a huge national security threat.
Nevermind, I thought you were serious.
Don’t these folks have to take an oath of office. If so, this must be a violation of that oath. that is willfully violating the constitution. Not to mention the waste of money to defend a stupid law.
Alan, terrorists overseas and terrorists detained here after being caught overseas have no privacy rights, and have no habeas corpus rights.
Democrats need to STOP giving OUR constitutional rights to the people trying to obliterate us.
Capeche?
Ignoring the laws is a threat to all of us and an invitation to anarchy.
Right then, let’s never again point out stuff like “who cares about the Constitution” because somehow, somewhere, somebody on the other side of the political aisle said or did something unconstitutional. In fact, we could all just save ourselves from being hypocrites by just keeping our collective mouths shut when councilwomen (and mayors, and senators, and representatives, and all the other power junkies in government) openly flout the Constitution and vow to fight for legislation they outright SAY is unconstitutional. Yup, the world will be a better place if we all just say nothing.
/sarc
It’s more the fact that the Democratic Party has been taken over by “progressives.”
These creepy creatures have openly expressed contempt and impatience with the Constitution for over a century. Even “progressive” Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt expressed annoyance with the fact that the Constitution put limits on his “enlightened” ambitions.
Social conservatives aren’t much better, what with their insistence that the Constitution be turned into the Ten Commandments. The only major difference between social conservatives and progressives is that the former try to use the legitimate and Constitutional amendment process to get their way, whereas the latter just take the matter to a liberal judge and he or she amends the Constitution for them with the bang of a gavel.
I missed something….where is the right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of being left alone, but I know the right to privacy was arbitrarily interpreted from the Constitution. It hardly deserves mention next to the 2nd Amendment.
I also missed where Habeas Corpus applied to non-citizens. Is that in the Constitution?
And they say Conservatives don’t respect the constitution.
I am a college professor, and I am almost finished teaching a course on Constitutional argument. My students were quite surprised to find what is in the Constitution, but even more, what is not. The right to privacy is not mentioned expressly. It was created out of whole cloth by an activist Court. However, the Constitution does say that it applies to citizens of the United States, which does not include illegal immigrants or enemy combatants. Like my students, you may find it instructive to read the Constitution and all attendant amendments.
Someone should have pulled out a gun and shot her on the spot. That would be a good example of living in a Marxist society vs a constitutional republic. Democrats will have to learn the hard way that in a marxist society the politicians don’t rule, the man with the most and biggest guns does.
LOL @ PATRIOT ACT loving Republican statists whining about Democrats not respecting the Constitution. ahahahahaha
And the RINOs like John McCain tell us we need to “work with the Demoncrats”. Bull, we need to fight the assault on the Constitution.
It’s always funny (as in a laugh in their face sort of way) when liberals pull the moral equivalent BS of laws designed and passed to protect the country from foreign terrorists (remember that phrase, “against all enemies foreign and domestic”?) with laws passed that directly abrogate the rights affirmed for US citizens by the Bill of Rights. It’s especially amusing (again in that laugh in their face sort of way) when they apply that moral equivalence to made-up rights (right to privacy) that appears nowhere specifically spelled out in the Constitution with laws that abrogate specifically enumerated rights like the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”.
If it weren’t so absolutely Orwellian and truly statist, the libs positions would make great comedy.
LOL, sorry guy but you’re not really pro-Constitution if you simply pick and choose portions of the Constitution you don’t like. Blame liberals all you want but you are not owning up to the fact that the Constitution protects people you don’t agree with. Just because a prosecutor or politician calls someone a terrorist or criminal doesn’t make the defendant a terrorist or a criminal.
There’s a thing called the Constitution, where everyone has the right to a fair and speedy trial. But you have to admit that Republicans, as well as Democrats, use tools to usurp Constitutional rights like habeas corpus and privacy rights to undermine the Constitution.
Terrorism is a serious issue but the war on terrorism is illegitimate when it usurps the Constitution to attain its goals.
It is really a war on the Constitution.
I don’t mean to single you out, AZfederalist, but being stubbornly partisan against one side or the other while looking the other way when you side rejects certain rights in the Constitution just exposes what is ultimately your indifference to the Constitution.
-Samir
Samir, the most eggregious violations occur from the left while they sing songs of how much they support rights. They support no such thing – their view of freedom of speech is freedom to say what they agree with.
There’s a vast difference between leftists who make laws designed to disenfranchise self-reliant individuals and the impromptu courts set up to deal with NGO terrorists. Big difference.
Constitutional rights apply to US citizens – to alien combatants, that’s the hassle that’s sprung up. Just because someone is from an enemy nation, espousing the warlike philosophy they follow (jihad), acting as a terrorist/saboteur/murderer, but not wearing a uniform does not make them a civilian criminal. Used to be they’d fall under spy/saboteur guidelines and just be shot. Since they’re disorganized and just disparate elements of the same organization (jihad, mostly) – that’s thrown the monkeywrench into the works.
Anyhow, point being, there’s no real equivalence. This is a control issue for the city council – which will accomplish nothing but harm law-abiding gun owners at it makes it harder to abide by the law.
Criminals, naturally, don’t care. They never have. Simple as that.
Either punish the violent offenders or deal with the consequences of their actions. Leftist ideology believes not in redemption, but reduction of all morality to nil, so the murderer is just misunderstood and every bit as good as everyone else.
Anyhow… Samir, you probably already see the difference, but you’re trying to remind folks not to get tunnel vision, no?
BTW – like you said, the constitution does protect everybody – it’s there to protect people from the city council bozos as well as fictional men in black. Heck, Miranda rights came from a rapist not being told his rights. He got what he deserved later, but in the meantime, some good law came out of it.
When Politicians say, “There is no Constitution” then they have no authority over me.
Politicians are loaned the power to make decisions on a limited basis and for a limited amount of time to do the limited work granted to them by the Constitution. Once they state that there are no rules for them, then they only have thug like behavior and the thugs that follow them.
This is just the situation the Second Amendment was designed to be a shield against.
ST, I just hope you don’t mistake your moral relativism for vigilance. I see this happen on both sides of the political aisle. I am an independent and criticize all abuses of the Constitution, regardless of who is abusing it.
That is how all Constitution defenders should act. We are all in this together; the ones who would abuse the Constitution are the ones who want to drive us apart. Sure, have your political venting and whatnot, but those who would abuse our rights do not care about left-right politics, they just care about weakening the People.
Is Councilwoman Tonya Payne actually American? She sounds like our politicians here in Europe.
The result? Shall we really go into how European governments have disarmed law abiding citizens and meanwhile our crime rates are going through the roof? How the UK, for example, has now three sharia courts that operate outside of the British justice system? How my own government shafted the people and simply ratified the fascist EU constitution (I know, they call it “EU treaty”, but it’s really the failed constitution from a few years ago) against the will of the people and against our own constitution?
Alan Smith,
You Mentioned,
“Republicans out on their hatred of privacy rights…”
Please point out the “Privacy Rights” section of the Constitution. Thanks
Samir, both you and Alan Smith reveal your ignorance here in a big way. The Patriot Act does not violate anyone’s Constitutional rights. It does not represent a “war on the Constitution.” The acts Bush has taken to prevent another 9/11 are actually quite mild compared to those taken by Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during WW2. Please tell me, in what way has the Patriot Act affected your freedoms, or even your privacy, in any noticeable way? Yet you blithely insist it’s some kind of draconian law under the burden of which we are all bent and groaning in our chains. Well guess what? Habeas corpus doesn’t apply to foreign combatants, and it’s perfectly legal to tap telephone calls coming from outside the U.S.
People like this Democratic councilwoman, on the other hand, want to arbitrarily disarm law-abiding citizens. Why? Because a disarmed population is much easier to control. That is truly the road to tyranny.
llonae said: “Last I checked, Republicans don’t care about habeas corpus or privacy rights.”
Oh where to begin. First I believe the “violation” of habeas corpus you refer to is the Gitmo detainees. These are foreigners who are prisoners of war and they are not on American soil. In other words, habeas corpus does not apply to them. It might interest you to know that under a democrat named FDR we had German POW’s that were in the continental U.S. in prison camps. As for the right to privacy I’m not sure of what you are referring to here. Perhaps “illegal wiretaps” which again do not exist. Homeland security wants to have the ability to tap into phone conversations without a warrant when the calls origin and destination are outside the U.S. but is routed through the U.S. No one’s phone conversations in this country are being listened to without a warrant. Besides, could you please show me the part in the Constitution or amendment to the Constitution that gives us a right to privacy? You are like counselwoman Tonya, ignorant of the constitution.
This is the Democrats “3 Card Montey” – bring up Habeas Corpus issues for terrorists and detainees – while they strip us all of our MONEY, rights and freedoms. It’s the slow and steady march toward Socialism. The Trophy Generations (X&Y) are already suited up! The want to be KEPT their entire life and truly believe EVERYTHING THEY DO is wonderful. It’s the dogma of the Socialists and now they stand and chant like Moonies – change, change, change to their beloved leader Barry-O. He’s about as geniune as a magician at a circus side show. I swear they’d drink the KoolAide for him.
The Constitution belongs to ALL Americans and we should defend it – but elected officials who decry it’s lack of worth – SHOULD BE FIRED FROM OFFICE.
shawn –
You have it wrong I didn’t make the statement about Habeas Corpus – Alan did.
ST said: “There’s a thing called the Constitution, where everyone has the right to a fair and speedy trial.”
Wrong! Only American citizens or those on American soil are protected under the guarantees of the constitution. An enemy combatant not on American soil has no guarantee under our constitution. Their only guarantees are found under the Geneva Convention rules of war. Even that is suspect because these particular combatants do not belong to nations that are signatories to the Geneva Convention. In other words, we’re being nice giving them these guarantees. Under the Geneva convention, they have no rights to habeaus corpus or any 6th amendment rights to fair and speedy trials.
LlonaE, sorry. I must be reading the comments section wrong. I apologize.
ST, it looks like I’m reading the attribution part of this blog incorrectly. I attributed something to you that was actually a statement by Samir. My apologies. Samir, please read what I said above. You are dead wrong about the Constitution.
I think that people like Alan and Samir would be well advised to heed Thomas Jefferson’s warning:
“To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
Or what a number of others have said: “The constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Isn’t just so funny that people talks about rights and privacy but then turn around and put themselves on FaceBook type websites with detailed information about themselves and rather shocking photos? They get “discount” cards for the grocery store which then allows the store to build a complete profile of their purchases and SELL that information to other vendors? For God’s sake they know what toilet paper you use to wipe your butt! If you want complete privacy become a monk.
And even more odd is they support the censoring of Christian religious holiday symbols instead of supporting the concept of TOLERANCE.
IIonaE,
Do you know that there is a GREAT difference between someone giving their OWN info out willingly and the government doing it forcefully?
And, if you are saying that the gov’t should be allowed to do it just because people give out too much of their own info freely… well, then, you have no idea what law is, what the Constitution is, and why they are necessary.
Further you so easily discount the evil of intrusive gov’t that it is amazing.
Gregg,
Your apathy and indifference towards unconstitutional laws like Patriot Act are exactly why people like yourself cannot be trusted to be defenders of the Constitution. That is why I think a site like this one only caters to those who would pick and choose things to get upset about.
Please don’t speak for those of us who defend the Constitution at all times, not just some of the time.
shawn,
You and those who would cower in fear and awe of the government would be well advised to read the following from Hermann Goering:
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Good job Samir,
You didn’t actually counter the points I made. You merely compared George Bush with Hermann Goering. Another Nazi comparison. Very original. Why don’t you try to counter what I actually said about the supposed “erosion” of our rights instead of dealing in hyperbole. Perhap you can’t which is my guess.
Just saying, please don’t pretend to be a defender of the Constitution if you are not willing to defend its less popular provisions, which include the right to privacy and the right to habeas corpus.
Again, you managed to dodge my points in the previous post. Let me restate.
First off, can you point out the right to privacy in the constitution or amendments? Either outright saying it or as a penumbra such as the penumbra of personnel property rights outlined in the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments?
I will however again answer your allusion to privacy which I assume you are talking about warrantless wiretaps. The warrantless wiretaps that are referred to by the Bush administration concerns calls where the origin and destination are in a foreign country. The call is routed through the U.S. therefore under current law a warrant was needed until we changed the law. No calls in America have a warrantless wiretap on it under the current law. How is the constitution being violated here?
The habeus corpus that you talk of applies to those who are Americans or on American soil. How does habeus corpus rights (or any other American constitutional rights) apply to foreign combatants in a declared war who are POWs and are not on American soil? In fact, how do Geneva convention rights apply to them seeing as most of them come from countries that are not signatories to the Geneva convention and they do not fit the definition of enemy soldiers as outlined in the Geneva convention (have a uniform, represent a country etc.)?
You cannot answer these questions, therefore you continue to dodge them. You are also dodging this counsel woman’s total disregard for the second amendment and Pennsylvania’s constitution by bringing up all of these other issues.
Samir,
[edited] off. Don’t accuse me of apathy and indifference toward the Constitution, you little punk. I believe in defending it at all times, but not to the point of suicide. There ARE extraordinary circumstances where temporary exceptions–not changes, but exceptions–to the Constitution have to be made, although they must be made with extreme caution.
Incidentally, the Patriot Act (which was overwhelmingly approved by Congress, including Democrats) is not one of those exceptions. What and whose Constitutional rights does it violate?
As I said, Bush’s actions to protect us from further acts of terror have been rather mild compared to the, some would say extreme, measures Lincoln took to preserve the Union in the Civil War, and that FDR took to maintain homeland security during WW2.
The US Constitution’s first 10 amendments extend those rights, freedoms and protections to the people, universally held in legal precedent to mean just that, all of the people. Non citizens legally residing, working, or visiting the US have always been covered by those guarantees as much as they are required to abide by the rest of that document.
History tells us that the Constitution would never have been enacted without a charter of rights and protections similar to ones already enshrined in many of the constituent state constitutions. The 14th amendment declares in no uncertain terms that the whole of the law- provisions, rights, duties and protections apply to all of the people in all of the states of the Union. The only right reserved to citizens in the Constitution is the right to vote and to hold national office, subject to the conditions set out in the relevant articles.
Retired Gen. Russell Honore is known for using the catchphrase “stuck on stupid”, which applies beautifully in the case of right wing xenophobes who are so rabid in their brand of nationalism that they do grave dishonor to the letter of, not to mention the spirit of the very document makes the United States the nation they insist that they love more than you or I do.
The Bill of rights applies to the people, period. Except for the specific exceptions mentioned above, that includes everyone, citizen or not. All of the people who come under the jurisdiction of the United States also come under the protection of the United States.
Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition, security in one’s papers and person, and all of the others, apply to citizen and non citizen alike. The detention centers in politically friendly nations and in occupied ones, including the one on Cuba all exist so that the current administration can make the argument that those held there fall outside of US jurisdiction and therefore the protection of the US Constitution. The one in Cuba is arguably the biggest stretch, since we have long adhered to the principle of international law that treats places like military bases and diplomatic missions in any country as sovereign soil of the nation they represent, and beyond the reach of local authority.
Gregg,
You are defending unconstitutional things like Patriot Act and extrajudicial actions.
The Constitution must not be compromised just because your politics are a certain way. This is why I feel independents like myself are much more equipped to be guardians of the Constitution, not biased people like yourself who only support part of the Constitution.
Oops I mean TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, THE PATRIOT ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER LIE!
The Constitution has been compromised for over 50 years. For the most part, by the ACLU.
You must be a ACLU troll if you think you, or any one group is “more equipped to be guardians of the Constitution.”
Samir,
You again post on here about how the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Yet you never once cite a specific reason why it’s unconstitutional. You are either an idiot who cannot comprehend what other people responding to you are saying. Or, you know what they are saying and you have preconceived notions which the truth does not conveniently fit into so you just choose to ignore all of the defenses of the Patriot act in this thread. I prefer to believe the latter. Which would make a Bush hating liberal, not an independent.
That being the case, you don’t have too much credibility unless you can actually put together an argument as to why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Just saying it, does not make it so.
Feral,
I agree with you about everything you said. Especially the part about how our Constitution and BOR and all the other rights enshrined therein do not apply to those who are not on American soil and not American citizens. Lets also keep in mind that those down in Cuba are enemy combatants in a declared war. These people have never been given our constitutional rights even when on American soil. We had German POWs housed in internment camps right here in America during WWII and no one even considered to give them constitutional rights. They were put in labor camps to help farmers out, forced labor.
Since you are a lover of the constitution and BOR I’m sure you will join with me in denouncing what this Pittsburgh counsel woman said that started this whole thread concerning the 2nd Amendment.
shawn,
I’m just saying, you are not a legitimate guardian of the Constitution if you are defending things that usurp its power, like Patriot Act.
Samir
No one person guards the constitution. We citizens all have the duty to guard and protect our rights as enshrined in the constitution. As for the Patriot Act, again name one thing in it that is unconstitutional? You can’t because there isn’t anything. Just because you keep saying the Patriot Act is unconstitutional does not make it so. Please cite one thing in the Patriot Act that is unconstitutional? That’s all we’ve been asking for. You have also said that the right to privacy is enshrined in the constitution somewhere. Can you share with us where the right to privacy exists in the constitution?
Samir
I suggest you actually do a little studying on what exactly is in the constitution before you chastise the rest of us. Read the 4 pillars of our government more (Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Constitution and BOR) and the Daily Kos and Huffington report less.
I read any and all web sites, to help increase my knowledge. I feel that things written 200 years ago are not static and must change with the times.
Rape must be OK with you then? Murder? Theft? Laws against these things are more than 200 years old. Let’s “change with the times” man!
Things must change to have progress. For instance, the Qur’an and the Bible must not be static; only fundamentalists and extremists want to follow scriptures to conform to a 2,000 year old society. But there are many independents who are not biased who believe that the search for knowledge must not stop at the writing of these important works. Constitution is another example of this. Just because illegal things like Patriot Act worked 200 years ago does not mean they should be interpreted as legal today. The opinion of the governments notwithstanding.
Samir,
We do have a way of changing the constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it. It’s called the amendment process. It’s also been in place for more than 200 years. I’m glad you now finally admit that there is nothing unconstitutional about the Patriot act you just want it changed because you feel it’s wrong. Sounds like you think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional so that must mean we need to change it somehow. Maybe someone else will come along and say you’re not an American and need to leave the country. Maybe in their opinion “independents” like you do not deserve to live here. Would that be okay with you?
I don’t know where you are from originally (America or elsewhere) but in this country we have laws. They have to follow the constitution. If not, then they are not valid laws. If the laws are just and the constitution is wrong (like allowing slavery at one time) then you amend the constitution (like the 14th amendment).
We shall agree to disagree.