Do you think Republicans will repeal unconstitutional laws if they take control in January?

No votes yet

What unconstitutional laws?

Pink Slip

Any laws that do not fall under the 18 enumerated powers granted to congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

"Any laws that do not fall under the 18 enumerated powers granted to congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution."

Well, luckily we don't have any of those.

Pink Slip

Yeah, how lucky for us.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

For the Republicans to override a veto they need a 2/3rds majority. While this November is going to be good there is not enough room for them to gain enough to override a veto.

That being said unconstitutional laws will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.


Well, they had a pretty good length of time to at least pull back on a few things during the Bush years, and did nothing but grow the federal government.
The Supreme court has a pretty sorry track record when it comes to the constitutionality of federal boondoggle laws, I.E. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the progressive tax code(remember, the income tax burden was supposed to be spread evenly on all citizens) Welfare, All of the unconstitutional alphabet "bureaus", takeovers, bailouts and so on.
Republicans really aren't much different than Democrats, when the Dems move left, the Repubs follow right along. They just try to keep taxes juuust low enough that people wont really care about all the other crap that they do because if they can keep a couple extra bucks from there paycheck, they wont pay attention to anything else that's going on.
The Republicans will do nothing to pull back any of the Maobama nonsense, they will just run it there way until they lose power again, then talk a big game to get that power back again, back and forth back and forth, nothing more, nothing less. It's just a powergrabbing game to these dirtbags, Dems AND Repubs.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

The Republicans hate the Constitution as much as the Democrats do. The Constitution's design is for a very limited form of federal government, and both parties hate that idea.

Nothing will change as our federal government spends itself into oblivion. And by "oblivion", I really mean "the end of the middle class".

Of course, you morons who insist on voting for fiscally-liberal Democrats and Republicans could pull your heads out of your collective ass and finally vote for the Libertarians. They really do have all the answers, since the only other choice is the collapse and immolation of the Holy American Empire. Facing national extinction, you really don't have a choice ... it's either that you take the hard medicine of fiscal contraction now, or you bury your sons outside your burned-out house later.

Having said that, I'm now realizing that maybe you do hate your own children that much.

"Of course, you morons...could pull your heads out of your collective ass and finally vote for the Libertarians. They really do have all the answers"


Pink Slip

They have all the answers since they abide by the design of this Republic. The absurdly huge size of our government is literally all of our problem. The intrinsic nature of the limited government of our design is the clear fix to that problem. We merely have to stop being so stupid and accept that we've gone in the wrong direction for generations with this government's growth.

The U.S. federal government has grown 12 times faster (budget wise) over the last 70 years than can be accounted for via wage inflation and population growth. Since it's grown faster than people and their wages can support, a difference appeared, and that difference was made up by borrowing. Well, that borrowing links to a tax load, since all borrowing is just a call on future income, and generally a larger call, due to interest charges. So that was just a delaying action. Sure, it delayed our government's collapse for a few decades. But the future is still clear: The U.S. federal government must still collapse since it eats money faster than all sources can legally supply to it.

Libertarians will fix this. Democrats and Republicans won't. That's the hard reality that you need to face. Of course, that extra $20K that you now owe is part of that hard reality. Maybe when they finally tax the fuck out of your ass, and you watch your future prosperity disappear, then that hard reality will hit you personally in a way that cannot be avoided any further. You will have to admit it then.

So ... why not just admit it now? Before the real catastrophe strikes? You do have a forebrain, right? You do use your brain, right?

Unfortunately, the Libertarian party is HORRIBLE when it comes to public relations and campaigning. They really do have a pretty firm grasp of how the federal government is supposed to operate, but getting that message out there is just as important as the message itself, and Libertarians fail miserably in this respect ALWAYS. I mean, just look at our own state race for governer, how many people do you think can even NAME the Libertarian candidate? I don't know anyone who can, and this is why Libertarians can't even win elections for small political offices, like mayoral races. So,even though it's tragically unfortunate, the Libertarians won't fix it either, because unless they start to really make a legitimate effort to spread there message, they will never have the chance to.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

Conservatives sure love the Constitution, except for 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, 16th and 17th amendments and of course let’s not forget the 42 constitutional amendments Republicans want to add to the constitution.

Yep – Conservative and Republicans should do love that constitution.

Oh that's right. We oppose certain parts of the constitution and not the others. How could I have forgotten.

BTW if you look I, me, a conservative, was the only one who posted anything relevant to the constitution in this thread that's supposed to speak of the constitutionality of laws.

And if you're going to accuse us of hating the first amendment I'd suggest you quit trying to limit free speech with the fairness doctrine.


I could care less about the fairness doctrine, please provide a quote of me stating otherwise.

I was thinking about conservatives opposing the conversion of the abandon Burlington Coat Factory into a Mosque or the one in Tennessee or Ari Fletch in 2001 saying “There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say.” or Casey Wilson opening a can Stainbrook on Wolfman because he said something wrong on the internet. Can I sue you for stating that I’m for the fairness doctrine? That’s a lie right? I can sue for that.

Sue Away that's your right. Good luck proving malice which in the case of puppy and the Wilson's would have been VERY easy. However had they delivered me that letter and I was leghumper I would have fought it under the standing that the Wilson's by way of their jobs are public figures. It's no different than the bloggers who attacked Bristol Palin. Plus I've never been any type of a Brian Wilson fan. I still say the station took a huge downturn when Frantz left.

No one said enact a law to prevent the mosque. However they are fully within their rights to protest it, encourage politicians and zoning boards to oppose it, and to suggest the funding for it be investigated. However a law would have been unconstitutional.


The Libertarian Party has the VERY enviable position of never being elected. What I mean by that is they are able to hold onto their ideology without actually having to govern. If and when elected, they will certainly compromise their positions to stay in power. It's EASY for a minority party to sound ideologically-pure (listen to how the GOP talks about spending). And the Libertarian Party is a permanent minority party.

Pink Slip

Is that really your answer? That they have the luxury of principles due to the expectation of never having to put them to the test?

And what you've said is so damning of the Two-Party System that one wonders what you pull the lever on, in that ballot booth, in good conscience. You're telling me you either don't vote, or that you vote for slimy crooks with full knowledge of their corruption. So which is it?

I've always said that the American voter is the enabler of all this corruption and incompetence. You're proving it.



I think the Libertarian Party proved itself ideologically pure this week when they refused to accept Murkowski for the Alaskian Senate seat. It was a vindication against what Pink posted.

They could have accepted a candidate with a GOOD SHOT at winning in a three-way race but instead choose to keep their candidate who was an ACTUAL libertarian.

While I am not a Libertarian and I don't see eye-to-eye with all of their principles I do respect them for having the will not to take the easy way just to be successful.


Yeah GZ--that's my answer. Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for a Libertarian Party candidate in a heartbeat if I felt they were the better candidate. Just like I'd vote for a Republican if they were the better candidate. But the point remains--let's see how they actually govern before we claim that they have "all the answers". The difference between pre-election rhetoric and actual accomplishments in office is great.

Mikey, that example's is a bit different than my claim. Let's see what they do IN OFFICE.

Pink Slip

How will they get into office if you refuse to vote for them? By appointment?

Have you ever read Heller's Catch-22? You should.

In fact, I said the OPPOSITE. I would vote for them in a heartbeat...My point is, well...I have already said my piece.

Pink Slip