Women;

Did God make a mistake or DID HE DO IT TO US ON PURPOSE?

Cause if he made a mistake, maybe we could fix it. Find a cure, invent a vaccine or build up our immune systems.

                                                       Darryl Van Horne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVW_6pK93n0

The Constitution does not really tell us that much!

I mean folks who scream for Free Speech forget that our Supreme Court had to take a small phrase in the First Amendment and decide when speech became behavior or inciteful and most importantly or not, whether or not they liked the defendant or his speech!

So everyone should know that if you scream FIRE in a men's room at Caesar's you might still be prosecuted for an action that involved only speech!

Fine. Except of course if you are privy (I love puns) to smoke in the privy, you might wish to scream FIRE ALMIGHTY anyway!

You are then subject to a standard that involves the Reasonable Man Standard. Since everyone knew in the old days that women (except for Dolly Madison of course) could never be reasonable, we have forever been stuck with a reasonable man standard.

Would a reasonable man with a wide stance conclude that fire was an immediate threat to the safety of all those other diuretics and bulimics taking time in their stalls to eliminate the unnecessary?

All righty then!

Some reasonable men and women just do not think things through! Americans are famous for this defect of character.

I mean, tens of millions of folks believe that the universe (not just the earth) is a few thousand years old. And yet, none of those folks could ever spell Galapagos in a spelling bee or attempt to explain entropy in the context of atomic theory....so who really gives a shite?

Anyhooooooo...the Tea Party has weighed in on the issue of national debt limits and international corporate tax limits anyway.

This amalgam of dissociative miscreants is opposed to repubs raising this debt limit which this amalgam neither understands nor wishes to understand. Except....notice the idea of exception.

The Supremes must always deal with exceptions or the guy with the wide stance in the Caesar's Stall would fry in the electric chair forever in the event he decided to exercise his extra sensory perception with regard to emanations from some great fire that would encompass the masses involved in the Caesar Community.

So, the teabagging miscreants send their representatives a strange qualification with regard to their debt limit demands.

Let me back up a bit here.

The liberal commie press in the form of Salon's war room would tell us that teabaggers cannot do math.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/09/14/tea_party/index.html

This just pisses off those miscreants going under the name of teabaggers whilst they misoverestimate the size, and the purity and the heart of their own constituency.

So the Tea Party responds to a call for raising the debt ceiling as follows:

NEVER! Never, never, never or we shall make sure you shall never run for any public office ever again and have to get a job with some lobbyist organization and earn a real living!

Okay but what about hypotheticals?

I mean suppose that you are a teabagging repub rep and you are in the Men's Room at Caesar's and you used ESP to determine that you must scream FIRE in a crowded restroom and then, just as everyone was being led to safety because of your sharp intuition and then because you had over tanned beside some Vegas pool whilst you fell asleep and were taken to jail as a possible Mideast terrorist whilst further court proceedings proceeded and then just as your smarty pants attorney (paid for illegally from your campaign funds) got you 'off' you received a call from a hospital in Cleveland that your mother was sicker than a dog as a result of impure water impured by shale mining interests and needed your presence to bring her back to our mortal world due to your fine talents at reviving the dead.....

Okay, but the leaders of these mentally challenged folks rethink the purity of their demands and they come up with an Exception—like they are members of some Tea Party Supreme Court and qualify their demands as follows:

NEVER, of course if your mother is in the hospital and needs you to save her life from overdosing on water....or

NEVER unless of course you (pass?) or (pass in the House?) or (pass in both Houses of Congress?) or....whatever.

NEVER, unless you pass a Constitutional Amendment that 'balances the budget' or your mother is sick in the hospital due to the intake of impure waters....

Okay. Now push comes to shove.

Well, one might ask, what in the hell is a constitutional amendment and by what process does a constitutional amendment become the LAW OF THE LAND?

 

United States Constitution

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

Okay, but how much time would be involved in such an endeavor.

First, a Constitutional Convention might be 'called'!

Congress could pass a resolution for such a Constitutional Convention to be convened.

Then the states could vote on whether or not such a balanced budget amendment might be considered-=of course the states would have to be in favor of such an amendment as long as the wording was exact and as long as 39 states went along with this idea.

Or the 39 states could bypass this process altogether (the only process ever enacted was instituted by the Congress) and order their own Constitutional Convention (which has never ever ever happened).

Okay.

So Congress by a 2/3 vote, sends a demand for a vote upon one proposed amendment (exact wording required) to all of the states and then receives an affirmative vote from 39 or more state legislatures.

Now for all bicameral state legislatures, both houses in that state must vote affirmatively for such an amendment (½ +1 of both houses or 2/3 of both houses depending upon state law).

Votes in unicameral legislatures would be more easily implemented under these circumstances.

But getting back to this Section of the Constitution:

DILLON v. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

 

It will be seen that this article says nothing about the time within which ratification may be had-neither that it shall be unlimited nor that it shall be fixed by Congress. What then is the reasonable inference or implication? Is it that ratification may be had at any time, as within a few years, a century or even a longer period, or that it must be had within some reasonable period which Congress is left free to define? Neither the debates in the federal convention which framed the Constitution nor those in the state conventions which ratified it shed any light on the question. …

Of the power of Congress, keeping within reasonable [256 U.S. 368, 376]   limits, to fix a definite period for the ratification we entertain no doubt. As a rule the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require;12 and article 5 is no exception to the rule.

Okay, so the Supreme Court of the United States had to decide an issue with Article V that was not contained in Article V. The Amendment Provision did not provide for TIME!

Well this poor guy who was so upset about going to prison for transporting spirits had a really really sharp attorney who contended that the time between Congressional Action to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process and decisions by the State Legislatures was toooooooooo long, even though there is no discussion in the Amendment Provision providing for time between Congressional action and action by the State Legislatures!

Whew! Or Phew! Or WHATEVER!

Well isn't that precious!

Of course the Supremes ruled against the fellow who wished to continue the distribution of spirits to those who were seeking such spiritual sustenance.

So the Supremes, whilst discussing this matter at a cocktail party sometime in 1921 decided that the time period between Federal Action and State Action had to be reasonable thereby deciding to keep the fellow imprisoned since their distributor was not involved in the transaction!

Phew!

But we must remember, whenever there is enacted a Constitutional Amendment, the Supremes must 'interpret' the language and the context of the Amendment and whether or not they even like that Amendment!

It would take two million pages for an Opinion from the Supreme Court (including dissenting opinions) to define just what the hell a Balanced Budget was for chrissakes!

Whether or not your stance in the stall is reasonable or not becomes a much easier question that would only take a few hundred pages!

I conclude a few things from all this.

First, teabaggers are the most stupidest folks on the face of the planet.

Second, teabaggers have no idea what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment; and if you attempted to explain the process to them they would seek to amend the Constitution so that it was easier for right wing demagogues (but not left wing demagogues) to change our Constitution!

Third, I think the demagogues can pass some resolution in the House concerning balanced budgets and it will take a decade a least for the teabaggers to object to actions taken today concerning the debt ceiling –a subject which they could never comprehend in the first place.

The repubs do not have a 2/3 majority in the House and do not even have a ½ majority in the Senate.

Therefore there will not be a Balanced Budget Amendment anytime soon.

The fact is that:

Wall Street cannot stand a position that would not increase the debt ceiling.

And the repubs are Wall Street's best friends.

Oh and now for the real question before us:

Did our Forefathers do this all to us accidently or ON PURPOSE?

THE END