Banner Logo
The Real Kato
About Me
Frozen Lunches
Daring Fireball
Secret Agent Josephine

Most Recent

2023 September
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April

All Categories 


Recent Comments
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Ken said:
Yeah, we've both had our share of hope and disappointment in this game. Let's just hope for a good b...
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Dan* said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this game. On one hand, I feel pretty optimistic that we have the tale...
On College Football 2022: Week 1 Preview
Dan* said:
Glad to see you'll be back writing football again, Ken! Congrats on the easy win today. You didn't ...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Ken said:
Yeah, sorry one of our teams had to lose. I've come to appreciate Penn State as a classy and sympath...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Dan* said:
Hey Ken, congratulations on the win yesterday! Some really odd choices by our coaching staff in that...

<< Previous: Apple Watch: The Ann... | Next: Overheard >>

Legal News
Wednesday, 2006 March 8 - 2:08 am
We live in troubling times.

So, since when did it become okay to go ahead and just knowingly pass laws that are unconstitutional? Is it no longer a requirement that lawmakers pay any attention to the Constitution and legal precedent? They can just go ahead and do "whatever"?

I'm sure most folks have heard of South Dakota's attempt to upend Roe vs. Wade by outlawing nearly all abortions, even for victims of rape or incest, and even in most cases where the mother's health is endangered. I can't see how this could possibly stand up in court. Even abortion opponents are wondering about this tactic. Mississippi is considering an anti-abortion law as well, though not quite as extreme. But both are clearly in violation of the law of the land, as established by the Constitution and interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

And then there's Missouri, where there's a bill to make Christianity the official state religion. (Found this via arsepoetica.) Need I remind them that THE VERY FIRST WORDS in the Bill of Rights are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Maybe they thought that because it says "Congress", that doesn't apply to the Missouri legislature... I guess they didn't get as far as the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Sheesh.

You know what I would like? A law that says, any lawmaker who knowingly votes in favor of a bill that is in violation of the Constitution shall be immediately subject to impeachment. And flogging. Same for any governor or President who signs such a law. Maybe then we could get legislatures to stop wasting our taxpayer dollars with this crap.

In other legal news, the California Supreme Court has now decided that having oral sex with sixteen-year-old girls does not necessarily make you a sex offender. Just like Bill Frist's proposed Constitutional amendment outlawing flag-burning, this falls into the category of "laws concerning things that never happen to me".

Permalink  2 Comment   Bookmark and Share
Posted by Ken in: commentarypolitics


Comment #1 from Ken (realkato)
2006 Mar 8 - 2:42 am : #
Oh, and I did like the proposal on Wonkette that the Democrats introduce an "anti-flag-eating" amendment.
Comment #2 from Crouching Hamster (Guest)
2006 Mar 8 - 11:16 am : #
That's why we have separation of powers and checks and balances.

I'm still not worried.

Comments are closed for this post.

Search This Site
Powered by FreeFind