Radio Address


PDA






crewchief
July 10, 2004, 11:17 PM
I saw today on NBC nightly news that Bush made a public radio address last night and they were bringing this up because of a vote about gay marrage coming up this week. I really don't care about this part, but rather something else perked my ears up. He said in his radio address that the Constitutional amendments are clearly written and he feels that in NO way should any of them be questioned at any time. Hmmmm does that mean he believes that the 2nd should not be questioned I thought. I mean I know he is the better choice for RKBA than gun grabbin' Kerry/Edwards team but does this mean we can hold him to that statement more now. I believe now is the time to write as the race is heating up and if he is making statements such as those that he can not renig and give in to the AWB. I know that alot of you believe that there is not a snow balls chance in He!! that it will ever reach his desk, but if it does we need to hold him to his word.

Another side note, I was watching CNN and they were going over the stances that Edwards has and they said that he is in favor of the AWB renewal. Great if those two gun grabbers make it in we can kiss our RKBA away, but I guarantee it won't be without a fight. I sure hope they don't come on my property because that is my own little country as far as i'm concerned.:evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Radio Address" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
July 11, 2004, 06:10 AM
Yeah. Whooo. That Bush is some defender of civil rights. Including the freedom of speech*, the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure**, and the ninth*** and tenth amendments***.

To say nothing of the second amendment.****

:rolleyes:

*McCain Feingold Campaign Finance reform. Ya know, the one that bans your or I from espousing our beliefs via media 60 days before a general election.

**PATRIOT Act. Dead horse that's been beaten.

***{cough}drug war{/cough}

****Yeah. Wow. I really see Bush throwing his weight behind a repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act, or the 1934 National Firearms Act, to say nothing of that minor bit of unpleasantness associated with the 1986 FOPA.



Call me a cynic, but if GWB really meant what he said, it would be the most massive social upheaval since, oh, I dunno, the mid 1920's. The fact that he could actually say something like
...the Constitutional amendments are clearly written and he feels that in NO way should any of them be questioned at any time. without his head exploding is really a testament to the modern politician's capacity for doublethink.
:scrutiny:

Waitone
July 11, 2004, 02:06 PM
Lemme see if I got this right.

We have a supreme court, not to mention inferior courts, that feel free to interpret the constitutional without preconceptions. That gives us an legal environment where there is no predicting how the courts will rule on any particular case.

Enter from stage left the a Defense of Marriage Amendment. So now we have an amendment to the constitution defining marriage. So questionable laws pertaining to marriage go to SCOTUS to be interpreted against the constitution and its amendments. Now who is it that does the interpretation? Why the very same people who created the problem to begin with by their inability to read. Absolutely amazing the think we can solve the problem of a run away court by giving the court additional tools with which to run away.

Meanwhile, nested quietly in the constitution is a provision for legislative override of judicial consideration. Quoting from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section2 So rather than use provisions of the consitution to control the judiciary, congress thinks it OK to make the situation worse. Maybe congress wants to duck its responsibility for the deterioration in our respect for our founding principals.

lee n. field
July 11, 2004, 03:16 PM
I saw today on NBC nightly news that Bush made a public radio address last night and they were bringing this up because of a vote about gay marrage coming up this week.

You know, US presidents've been having these radio address' since Reagan ressurected the fireside chat. I've never heard one, nor do I know what station carries them, nor the time. Anybody got a pointer?

If you enjoyed reading about "Radio Address" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!