Quote of the day—Archer

I can find no excuse – zero, none – that someone running for office or training to be a police officer hasn’t found the time to peruse the operating instructions for our Republic.

Got Constitutional questions? RTFM.

December 16, 2014
Comment to Filed for future use
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Archer

  1. In the case of politicians, it isn’t ignorance we’re dealing with — it’s willful disregard of the Constitution. Consider this infamous quote:
    “There’s nothing in the constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.” — James Clyburn (D-SC)
    Those are not the words of someone who doesn’t know the Constitution — they are the words of someone who knows exactly what it says, and just doesn’t give a damn. In other words, a (so far unindicted) felon.

  2. “Charter of negative rights” — Pres. Obama

    “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama

    As much as we talk about the founding principles and the constitution as the solution to most of America’s problems, the left has their own dialog on the subject, going back several generations, about how the constitution is in the way, it’s inadequate, it doesn’t take the left’s goals of an “Open Society”, and “Social Justice” into account and so on, and about ways to get around it, ignore it, make it more and more irrelevant, and ultimately eliminate it as a factor in politics.

    Which vision, or system, is winning right now?

    • Not to pick anything apart, but does anyone else find it disturbing that Michelle Obama finds it necessary and proper to “change … our history”?

      • That’s what progressives do. That’s why they want to run the schools, to make sure they function as government indoctrination centers rather than places of education. That’s why we have been told that FDR and WW (among others) were saints rather than deliberate destroyers of the Constitution.

  3. To address Archer’s point more directly; people running for office or training to be police officers have no need to be concerned about constitutional limits.

    “I can find no compelling reason – zero, none – that someone running for office or training to be a police officer should take the time to peruse the operating instructions for our Republic. This is a new age, a new dawn, and we won’t be hindered by some dusty old document written by rich, white slave owners.

    Got Constitutional questions? You’re a nut bag. Join the Teaparty and go yap at each other. The rest of us have work to do.”

    That’s the attitude we’re facing.

    So yeah; they have plenty of excuses. They’ve been building a library of excuses since before any of us were born. They now have all the excuses they’ll ever need.

    • Yes, and unfortunately we have been letting them get away with it for over 150 years. And some of the most thorough evildoers are still held up widely as saviors of the republic — FDR is perhaps the most obvious example but he isn’t the only one.

  4. Public employees….be they elected or hired fall into two groups. Those who have NOT read the Consitution…..they don’t care what it says so why bother.
    And those who HAVE read it…..and for most of this group they read it looking
    for methodology’s to ignore, twist, mutate and eliminate it and it’s control over them. Power itself is actually not corrupting…..it’s just that it draws the corruptible as a moth to a flame.

Comments are closed.