There are many things I would take up with them. Most of it is just limiting government powers even more than they tried to along with secondary things like "NO CENTRAL BANK". You know, things that should have been in place but they thought we could handle it.
I mean, they sorta did grant that power exclusively to congress and not to a central bank - Article 1 Section 8 [Congress shall have the power...] Clause 5:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
This shouldn't be delegable to a third party, particularly not to a private entity
Kind of like how we need something other than the term "militia" to describe things in the 2nd along with how "shall not be infringed" needs to be even more clear for those that have reading comprehension issues in congress and state governments.
I'm just fed up with lawyers arguing in circles and allowing for things that are blatantly against the constitution to be "ok".
"They [meaning the elected reps of the legislative branch] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
That's a constitutional privilege granted exclusively to the legislature- not to citizens
I would postulate that the function of the capitol police is first to protect the congressmen and senators, then the citizens who are in the building. It is where the government does their work (if you can call it that), so if there is a threat it is safe to assume that it's a threat to the people who are always there and not to some tourists passing through.
On that assumption, I don't have a problem with congresscritters being able to pop past security. It's no different than flashing your badge to security at work.
The only thing I would have done different in his place is that I wouldn't have justified it with a vote. I would have just said "Hey idiots, I'm not the potential threat, I'm the one you're protecting. Are you afraid I'll harm myself?"
Citizens couldn't do that. People in Congress shouldn't have rights beyond the rights citizens have.
It is in the constitution - take it up with the founding fathers
There are many things I would take up with them. Most of it is just limiting government powers even more than they tried to along with secondary things like "NO CENTRAL BANK". You know, things that should have been in place but they thought we could handle it.
I mean, they sorta did grant that power exclusively to congress and not to a central bank - Article 1 Section 8 [Congress shall have the power...] Clause 5:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
This shouldn't be delegable to a third party, particularly not to a private entity
It needs to be blatant and far more direct.
Kind of like how we need something other than the term "militia" to describe things in the 2nd along with how "shall not be infringed" needs to be even more clear for those that have reading comprehension issues in congress and state governments.
I'm just fed up with lawyers arguing in circles and allowing for things that are blatantly against the constitution to be "ok".
They should have protected certain parts of the Constitution from amendment.
17th Amendment jumps immediately to mind as an amendment that irreparably broke the entire system.
Citizens not allowed rights or privileges people in congress have?
Article 1 Section 6 Clause 1:
"They [meaning the elected reps of the legislative branch] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
That's a constitutional privilege granted exclusively to the legislature- not to citizens
Thanks for posting it. I didn't know. Now I know.
I would postulate that the function of the capitol police is first to protect the congressmen and senators, then the citizens who are in the building. It is where the government does their work (if you can call it that), so if there is a threat it is safe to assume that it's a threat to the people who are always there and not to some tourists passing through.
On that assumption, I don't have a problem with congresscritters being able to pop past security. It's no different than flashing your badge to security at work.
The only thing I would have done different in his place is that I wouldn't have justified it with a vote. I would have just said "Hey idiots, I'm not the potential threat, I'm the one you're protecting. Are you afraid I'll harm myself?"