Monday, May 17, 2010

CRASH: Yes, Deemocrats, There IS A Constitutional Role In The Gulf

For about a week, I've been hearing idiot Deemocrats chant the collectivist talking-point suggesting that conservatives are hypocritical for expecting the Feds to act in the Gulf Of Mexico.  "Where in the Constitution do you find that, hmmmm....?"

Well, what that supposedly killer question illuminates is the overwhelming constitutional ignorance of collectivists, not any hypocrisy on the part of conservatives.

The Gulf situation is a pure example of APPROPRIATE Commerce Clause action by the Federal government.  Duh.

Where you have a situation that LEGITIMATELY impacts commercial activity ACROSS several states, you have a LEGITIMATE argument for Federal intervention.

Where you have a situation LEGITIMATELY effecting the navigable waters of the United States, you have an ADMIRALTY law situation, which is fundamentally FEDERAL.  It is ALSO manifestly a COMMERCE CLAUSE issue effecting all states on a practical level, quite apart from legalism.

So, Deemocrats, you see that there ARE appropriate, constitutional areas of FEDERAL activity that conservatives understand and support.  Not too surprising that you guys don't have a freaking clue, though.


  1. You know, I got a ticket last week for going 80 on the interstate. I have reviewed the constitution and ammendments, and can find absolutely nothing to prohibit a citizen from operating a motor vehicle at any speed he determines to be prudent or necessary. (I was late for my grand daughter's birthday party).

    Plus, the officer was black and I am a Swedish American - obviously a minority. Guess I'll challenge the ticket on constitutional grounds and sue the state for racism - if ACLU will take the case.

    I'll let you know how it goes.

  2. Yeah, Swede...

    keep us posted...and good luck with that!

    (Actually, the states have very broad "police powers" under the Constitution, which, of course, includes traffic law.)