Now it's Newsweek that thinks this whole checking a bill for constitutionality is crazy talk.
Michael Tanner has some thoughts as well.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have adopted a view of virtually unlimited government power that is clearly contrary to the Founders’ vision of a constitutionally limited government. In their vision, government roams the countryside fixing problems — any problems. Having trouble paying your mortgage? Don’t worry, the federal government will help you. Your local school not doing a good job? The federal government will be there to help. Don’t have health insurance? The federal government will make you buy it. As Rep. Pete Stark (D., Calif.) told constituents, “the federal government can do most anything.
The Constitution, with all its messy checks and balances and its attempt to limit government to only certain “enumerated powers,” is little more than a nuisance. “I don’t worry about the Constitution,” if it gets in the way of passing legislation, Rep. Phil Hare (D., Ill.) told a town-hall meeting. And Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.), the
third-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, proudly told Fox News, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
It makes one wonder why members of Congress take that silly oath to “support and defend the Constitution” when they are sworn into office.
A bloated runaway government naturally sees people that point out the limitations designed to check it as a threat.
And who are some of the people on suspected terrorist lists? Those that:
“Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’” In addition, “People whose political motivation is usually Marxist/Leninist philosophy,” “‘defenders’ of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN,” computer hackers, and “Lone Individuals”
Charming, so they want to watch you and possibly take away your right to arms and travel. All for supporting a docment they swore and oath to uphold.
It's not like they'd be willing to kill you. You're a US citizen there are rules that keep the goverment from simply killing you because they want too.
Right? Well ask al-Awlaki.
Ah damn it.
If our covert-ops guys light up some al-Qaeda redoubt in the mountains and al-Awlaki bites the dust, no tears from me. But those are very different things from having the U.S. government draw up a list of its own citizens to be targeted for assassination. The fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to make this fact public tells us something interesting, too: It is making a specific political point, and establishing a specific precedent. It is crossing an old and important line, and conservatives should never let the rule of unintended consequences be very far from our minds.
Roberta X looks at how naked it all is.
Bad stuff, that's what it leads to. Seems the Executive Branch is arguin' in court that they have a right to [State Secrets!] declare a U. S. citizen a bad guy and then [State Secrets!] put him to sleep like a mad dog. Well, actually, they're not even doin' that; near as I can figure out, they want the court to forget anyone even asked about it, 'cos it's a [State Secret!].
But you see... it's those of us that want less goverment power and a return to limited government that are crazy.
As Rep. Pete Stark said "the federal government can do most anything."