jump to navigation

A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS January 12, 2011

Posted by Administrator in : Politics , trackback

Sometimes it feels as if we’ve been fighting for our freedom all our
lives, although I’m fairly certain that it wasn’t supposed to be this
way. I’ve often wondered how it was that the Founding Fathers managed
to omit the single most important element that the Constitution could
have had, namely, a stringent penalty clause, attached to the Bill of
Rights.

That the so-called “architect of the Constitution” James Madison acted
in good faith in this matter, I’m reasonably certain, But it would not
surprise me in the least if someday correspondence showed up laying
the blame at the feet of Alexander Hamilton. It would be just like him
to willingly promise anything to anybody, in exchange for the “strong
central government” he lusted after so greedily, with the idea that he
could freely ignore these Constitutional limits once his _coup_ was
accomplished.

Although I suspect that even Hamilton would be astonished and outraged
by what his federal brainchild has become over the past century and a
half.

As I write this, the enemies of individual liberty, mostly those warm-
hearted “liberals” and “progressives” we all know so well, are dancing
in the blood of Gabrielle Giffords, Christina Taylor Green, and the
other individuals injured or killed in the recent Tucson shootings.
They are demanding more victim disarmament measures and the censorship
of political speech, while ignoring the facts of the matter as well as
the clear provisions of the highest law of the land, the Bill of
Rights.

This time it has to cost them something.

For years, although I’ve served on several platform committees and
can generate the jargon pretty well, I’ve looked for help from the
libertarian “legal community” to draft an appropriate penalty clause
for the Bill of Rights, mostly to no avail. So now, I have drafted one
myself.

Please find it below, along with a URL on my blog at Big Head Press. I
ask my friends and readers to use it as a .sig in their correspondence
for a week, beginning Friday, January 14, 2011 through Saturday,
January 22. If enough people see this idea and start talking about it
– especially within sight and hearing of the politicians who would
use Tucson as an excuse to limit our First and Second Amendment rights
– it will have served its basic purpose whether it ever passes or
not.

But …

Remember how the Soviets used to lock dissenters up in insane asylums?
I read the other day that something called “Oppositional Defiance
Disorder” is now to be found in the state court psychiatrists’
“bible”. It’s a label they plan to give to anyone who refuses to lick
jackboots.

Fair enough. Let’s do our best to get this penalty clause enacted
right away and show them what “Oppositional Defiance” really looks
like.

New Republicans in Congress caused a stir the other day when they read
the Constitution aloud in the House chamber. They made omissions that
they shouldn’t have, but they left the socialist media and their pet
politicians gibbering and sputtering hysterically. Maybe they should
do it every week. Even better, they have enacted a rule that every
bill from now on has to pass the test of constitutionality before it’s
introduced.

Let’s back them up in their noble efforts — and hold their feet to
the fire — by presentng them, and the nation, with another guarantee.
If it does pass into law, especially as a Constitutional amendment, we
will have delivered a greater gift to this once-great civilization
than any previous generation, save perhaps that of the Founders
themselves.

Here it is:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government,
who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this
Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily
removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and
benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501

Questions? Comments?

Comments

1. joe smith - January 12, 2011

I like it-except that i don’t trust the Supreme Court any more than i do the pols! Remember 2000, when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount. (According to the Constitiution the State supreme court is the legal authority over Fed elections in each State) a bunch of THUGS broke into the courthouse and stopped the recount by force-like this was Gautamala or someplace! the Us Supreme Court ruled that it was OK, and illegally appointed GW Bush Resident! The Constitution does not give the Court the right to name the President!
What amess-even the Supreme Court does not abide by the Constsitution!

2. Administrator - January 12, 2011

We all start where we can, Joe. In the long run, what I want to see is Alcatraz reopened and reserved exclusively for the violators of this act. Tourists on excursion boats can pay to throw outdated meat to the best prison guards — the sharks of San Francisco Bay– who ever lived.

It’s a small dream, but my own.

3. Perry - January 12, 2011

I’m reminded of the following paragraph which has haunted me for years:

To begin with, the supporters of institutions that are supposed to give us governments that respect and protect rights regard all of history as experimental error — we have after all done the experiment a couple of times — and they believe that if only this time we got it right, if only we wrote the right constitution, or somehow tweaked the system, we could actually get a government which was given a monopoly of the ability to use force on other people and, of course, only use it to protect people’s rights. Some of them believe you can do this with the right constitution. I was discussing this with my wife on the phone last night and she said, “Yes, the minarchists have a touching faith in constitutions.” And I thought H.L. Mencken put it much better, as he put most things, when he said, “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” –David Friedman, 2004 Liberty Editors conference panel, “Does Freedom Mean Anarchy”

4. El Neil - January 12, 2011

And so what … we all give up, cut our wrists, and drip dry?

Contrary to what many people apparently believe, I am not a Constitutionalist, and certainly not a minarchist. I am an anarchist who believes that those (the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) are _their_ rules, and they will by god be compelled to abide by them.

At the very least, they could get all tied up wrangling with each other over this law, and leave us alone a little more.

As I have said many times, libertarians are better at thinking up high-minded reasons for doing nothing than any other people I’m aware of. I’m not going to let that happen this time. If people disagree with me about this proposal, let them. I will ignore them and advance it with the help of those who agree with me about it.

5. al perez - January 12, 2011

I would also like to add section one (but not the others!!) of the 14th Amendment. On the other hand I know a lot of people object to the 14th in toto (what it’s doing in a scruffy dogs belly I don’t understand). and won’t get fussy. On the gripping hand while I agree the supremacy clause bind the states to incorporate the Bill of Rights I notice it does not extend citizenship to all persons born in the US. Given that certain conservatives want to start denying persons born in the US under US jurisdiction citizenship.

We do have to keep after the bums to keep honest. Politicians never break their promises to eachothe, it’s a necessary condition to keeping power. Well, where the Constitution is concerned we are as much officeholders as the most exalted official in the sense that their keeping their promise to respect the Constitution is a condition they must meet for us to continue to let them exercise power.

Some would argue that this is legalistic garbage, I claim it’s all that stands between us and violent insurrection. I’m in no rush to put down an insurrection by renegade Congressmen.

6. Lonnie Courtney Clay - January 12, 2011

Thanks for mentioning the ODD diagnosis Mr. Smith! I looked it up, but it does not fit my behavioral pattern. That caused me to do a web search on the “expert” diagnosis which was laid on me in 1974 by the first shrink whom I encountered professionally. Specifically, that I suffered from a “lack of respect for all authority and/or authority figures”. I was amazed to find that apparently I am the only person in the world who suffers from this syndrome, since a Google web search found only posts by me! I feel SO lonely, being unique in such a way. LOL Is there anyone else reading this who will rear up on his hind legs and proclaim “I Lack RESPECT for all authority and/or authority figures!”. LOLOL

If you declare such a thing, then it will logically follow that you can tack on another syndrome for free – “pathological liar”, because your lack of respect will inevitably lead to your lying to authorities. The more that authorities intrude into your life, the more you will be forced to lie…

Lonnie Courtney Clay

P.S. Could somebody who regularly comments here recommend a web hosting service for my newly purchased domain name lonniecourtneyclay.com? I want a 100% guaranteed no screw ups high load service, and will pay up to $50 per month for the service…

7. al perez - January 12, 2011

The purpose of current liberal/progressive thought is to meet the nedds of the least competent menbers of society. To do this it must bring the rest of us down to the same level of incompetence. This being impossible, it must bind us all by the same restrictions as the least competent

To them we are all the proverbial infants who can’t be trusted witth matches or sharp objects, guns or “hurtful words.” The difference between the modern and classic liberal is that the classic wishes to help us obtain a higher state, the modern wishes to bind us into permanent infancy.

The Bill of Rights is a document that reflects the philosophy of its classically liberal authors. It is anethema to the moderns.

8. Ken Holder - January 12, 2011

Lonnie – I’m very happy with Godaddy.com for both domain name registration and web hosting.

9. Administrator - January 12, 2011

This is why I almost always put the words “liberal” and “progressive” in quotation marks, Al. The people we are speaking of here are not anything at all like liberal. They are humorless, unimaginitive, tight-lipped, clench-fisted, anal-puckered neopuritans who see things in only one, narrow, ideologically circumscribed way (which is a very different thing from having principles).

Nor are they progressive in any way. Their guiding philosophy, what there is of it, originates at about the same time as our own Revolution. But whereas the ideas of Paine and Jefferson led to the development of the freest, most advanced and wealthy society in world history, socialism is an obsolete, outmoided, and discredited set of ideas which have starved uncounted millions and shot millions more. The hammer and sickle should be replaced with chainlink and razor wire.

The attraction of socialism in developed countries is two-fold. First, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, its advocate always imagine themselves at the top of the new regime. It’s been instructive — if not downright hilarious — to watch Bill and Hillary Clinton displaced by the muscle-Marxists of the Obama regime. If he had the power, they’d be the first ones to the wall.

The other attraction is that, scheming to run our lives, they don’t have to cope with their own, which are almost uniformly miserable failures. Their doubt of our ability to run our own lives is a projection of their own limitations. They imagine that we are like them.

We are not.

10. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 12, 2011

Now, someone needs to teach this idiot how to save this thing so I don’t have to come here to cut and paste it each time I want to put it somewhere.

11. al perez - January 13, 2011

Variation of comment made elsewhere:

Mr. Obama has asked that we make an America worthy of our children’s expectations. Allow me to suggest that a penalty clause to back up the Bill of Rights is necessary to achieve this goal.

12. joe smith - January 13, 2011

“every school of thought is like a man who has benn talking to himself for 100 years and is thrilled with his own mind, be he never so stupid” Goethe (probably not the literary Goethe . this one was a scientist.)
i think there is a great deal of truth in it. Every dogmatic fanatic, be he a PC liberal, a Freidmaniac, a Wahhabite, talks only with other fanatics of the same school . He cant stand anyone else, and anyone sane cant stand him. a dear frind of mine-she’s been like a sister to me for 20 years- got involved with some wacko fundamentalist group and will barely talk to me anymore. Spends all her free time on line with other fundy’s. (if they are so F’ing back-to-the-1st-Century, what are they doing on computers?)
Read a book called Fundamentalisms, which makes the point that any “revealed religion” whetther Christianity, Islam, Marxism, or Freidman economics, is prone to takeover by purer-than-thou fundamentalists. Anyone who urges rational analysis is easliy painted as a heretic. There was a politicain in Pakistan who just got murdered just for saying “maybe we dont allways have to execute everyone who disagrees with us.”!
that’s how Fundamentalists think! Unfortunately it gives them a huge advantage. A decent person , even if he is willing to kill an enemy soldier or a terrorist bomb maker, would never dream of putting a bomb on a bus and killing a bunch of innocent people. But to Al Queada or Provo terrorists blowing up fifty people at random is a an act of merit. (or, of course, to politicians with an air force…)
Not sure what’s to be done about it. They have an awful lot more guns than we do, plus the press, talk radio, the secret police etc…

13. R.D. Bartucci - January 14, 2011

Anent “constitutionalist” versus anarchist, I’ve always been inclined to remark that the U.S. Constitution isn’t perfect, but it beats the shit out of the way we’ve been fucked over since long before the day I was born.

Though in addition to this enforcement clause, I’d like to suggest an addition, from H.L. Mencken’s “The Malevolent Jobholder” (1924; see http://tinyurl.com/6ygecf ), that

“”…[I]t shall be no longer malum in se for a citizen to pummel, cowhide, kick, gouge, cut, wound, bruise, maim, burn, club, bastinado, flay, or even lynch a [government] jobholder, and that it shall be malum prohibitum only to the extent that the punishment exceeds the jobholder’s deserts. The amount of this excess, if any, may be determined very conveniently by a petit jury, as other questions of guilt are now determined.”

(The stefnally literate will recognize this as the premise upon which H. Beam Piper built his novel *Lone Star Planet* in 1958.)

14. R.D. Bartucci - January 14, 2011

Damn, I wish there were an “edit” function. I’d meant to write “…in addition to this enforcement clause, I?d like to suggest a supplemental enactment….”

Please take that as given.

15. Lonnie Courtney Clay - January 14, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Hughes

Boor that I am, I would like to recommend reading “For Texas and Zed.” Mention of “Lone Star Planet” yanked my chain…

If anagrams interest you :
https://sites.google.com/site/lonniecourtneyclay/home/anagram_fun

Lonnie Courtney Clay

16. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 14, 2011

RD- Before I got to the end of comment #13, I was planning to refer you to “LSP”, and specifically, the trial Stephen attends the first few hours on New Texas. “If you hadn’t killed him, I’da shot the SOB myself!” (Judge to defendant in trial over killing of a practicing politician who had proposed an income tax)

17. Dedicated_Dad - January 14, 2011

It’s a pipe dream.

How can any rational person believe that the folks who currently ignore the plain text of the Constitution at will would honor some new bit any better?

The Constitution *HAS* a penalty clause: It prescribes the penalty for TREASON — DEATH.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of those traitors in Sodom-on-the-Potomac took a solemn oath to uphold and defend that sacred document – as a condition of being allowed to hold a position of some power – and thus asserted their promise to honor that sacred contract.

Violation of the contract is therefore treason.

What we lack is not a proper penalty for .gov abuse, but the national testicular-tissue necessary to enforce it.

and THAT my friends can never be provided by any words.

Though I abhor violence, and deplore the human waste that just shot up Tucson – ESPECIALLY because of his idiotic assault on *ANY* innocent much less the dozens he harmed – the simple threat of an armed, awake and determined population of Citizens is the *ONLY* thing with a chance of turning this mess around.

As Jefferson put it “remind them that their people preserve a spirit of resistance!” – and the tools necessary to enable it.

Otherwise, we might as well surrender all our firearms, abdicate all “force” capability to the tyrants, and get used to the taste of the word “BOHICA”!

God help us – and God Save Our Republic!

18. R.D. Bartucci - January 15, 2011

I tend to refer to the place as “Mordor-on-the-Potomac.” Referring to it as “Sodom” credits the inhabitants thereof with restricting their activities to naught but non-fecundative acts of carnal pleasure.

Remember, they’re only figuratively screwing us.

19. R.D. Bartucci - January 15, 2011

I quote from *Lone Star Planet* (which is in the public domain and online at Project Gutenberg) that scene Mr. Osborn mentioned. The point-of-view character is the newly appointed Terran ambassador to the enlightened planet of New Texas:

======
“Well, Your Honor, we have a number of character witnesses,” the prosecution—prosecution, for God’s sake!—announced.

“Skip them,” the defense said. “We stipulate.”

“But you can’t stipulate character testimony,” the prosecution argued. “You don’t know what our witnesses are going to testify to.”

“Sure we do: they’re going to give us a big long shaggy-dog story about the Life and Miracles of Saint Austin Maverick. We’ll agree in advance to all that; this case is concerned only with his record as a politician. And as he spent the last fifteen years in the Senate, that’s all a matter of public record. I assume that the prosecution is going to introduce all that, too?”

“Well, naturally …” the prosecutor began.

“Including his public acts on the last day of his life?” the counsel for the defense demanded. “His actions on the morning of May seventh as chairman of the Finance and Revenue Committee? You going to introduce that as evidence for the prosecution?”

“Well, now …” the prosecutor began.

“Your Honor, we ask to have a certified copy of the proceedings of the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee for the morning of May Seventh, 2193, read into the record of this court,” the counsel for the defense said. “And thereafter, we rest our case.”

“Has the prosecution anything to say before we close the court?” Judge Nelson inquired.

“Well, Your Honor, this seems … that is, we ought to hear both sides of it. My old friend, Aus Maverick, was really a fine man; he did a lot of good for the people of his continent….”

“Yeah, we’d of lynched him, when he got back, if somebody hadn’t chopped him up here in New Austin!” a voice from the rear of the courtroom broke in.

The prosecution hemmed and hawed for a moment, and then announced, in a hasty mumble, that it rested.

“I will now close the court,” Judge Nelson said. “I advise everybody to keep your seats. I don’t think it’s going to be closed very long.”

And then, he actually closed the court; pressing a button on the bench, he raised a high black screen in front of him and his colleagues. It stayed up for some sixty seconds, and then dropped again.

“The Court of Political Justice has reached a verdict,” he announced. “Wilbur Whately, and your attorney, approach and hear the verdict.”

The defense lawyer motioned a young man who had been sitting beside him to rise. In the silence that had fallen, I could hear the defendant’s boots squeaking as he went forward to hear his fate. The judge picked up a belt and a pair of pistols that had been lying in front of him.

“Wilbur Whately,” he began, “this court is proud to announce that you have been unanimously acquitted of the charge of political irresponsibility, and of unjustified and excessive atrocity.

“There was one dissenting vote on acquitting you of the charge of political irresponsibility; one of the associate judges felt that the late unmitigated scoundrel, Austin Maverick, ought to have been skinned alive, an inch at a time. You are, however, acquitted of that charge, too.

“You all know,” he continued, addressing the entire assemblage, “the reason for which this young hero cut down that monster of political iniquity, S. Austin Maverick. On the very morning of his justly-merited death, Austin Maverick, using the powers of his political influence, rammed through the Finance and Revenue Committee a bill entitled ‘An Act for the Taxing of Personal Incomes, and for the Levying of a Withholding Tax.’ Fellow citizens, words fail me to express my horror of this diabolic proposition, this proposed instrument of tyrannical extortion, borrowed from the Dark Ages of the Twentieth Century! Why, if this young nobleman had not taken his blade in hand, I’d have killed the sonofabitch, myself!”

He leaned forward, extending the belt and holsters to the defendant.

“I therefore restore to you your weapons, taken from you when, in compliance with the law, you were formally arrested. Buckle them on, and, assuming your weapons again, go forth from this court a free man, Wilbur Whately. And take with you that machete with which you vindicated the liberties and rights of all New Texans. Bear it reverently to your home, hang it among your lares and penates, cherish it, and dying, mention it within your will, bequeathing it as a rich legacy unto your issue! Court adjourned; next session 0900 tomorrow. For Chrissake, let’s get out of here before the barbecue’s over!”

=======
Does anybody reading here wonder why H. Beam Piper is so much revered by libertarians?

20. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 15, 2011

Actually, RD, I do wonder sometimes. He also was a huge fan of monarchies, as evidenced by “Space Vikings”, “Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen”, and the “Paratime” stories. Paratime wasn’t a monarchy, but Verkan WAS a lord, and the Paracops DID have near dictatorial powers. But “Lone Star Planet”, “Four Day Planet”, and most of the 3 “Little Fuzzy” books redeemed him. I mean, let’s face it. jack Holloway is about as Libertarian as they come, UNTIL the bureaucracy sucks him in a bit.

21. al perez - January 15, 2011

As a Lovecraft fan I noticed the rehabilitation of the Whately family in this excerpt.

Sadly, it seems assassins target people engaged in less tyrannical activity in this country tan those in more. I get a feeling that this is because a: the more tyrannical a politician, the carefuller he is to keep out of people’s sights, and b: these political hits are put up jobs intended to get rid of respecters of liberty and justify acts of tyranny.

22. R.D. Bartucci - January 15, 2011

I have no direct experience of H. Beam Piper, but having read his fiction (including the very revealing *Murder in the Gunroom* which gives not only much insight into Mr. Piper’s personal interests and philosophy but also a fascinating view of the American economy and societal conditions in 1953), I think I can reliably infer that his view of the relationship between society and government correlates strongly with that expressed by Thomas Paine in *Common Sense* (1776) in which Paine had written:

“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”

Thus for Piper, the form of government mattered less – if at all – than did the degree to which it worked to secure the maximum possible exercise of individual rights for “the least expense and the greatest benefit.”

As for the “near dictatorial powers” of Piper’s Paratime Police, I suggest a reading of “Time Crime” (1955, online at http://tinyurl.com/4z76zbx ), in which we have much about how the First-Level government holds the paracops under the control of “Council and the Management.”

Every time I read his stuff, I wish that Piper hadn’t suicided, or had his business affairs go to hell so badly that he felt obliged to terminate himself. His paratime plenum was a lode he had come nowhere near to mining out.

I’m damned if I understand why nobody has bothered to get in there – beyond those Lord Kalvan extensions, which really aren’t that good – and bring Verkan Vall et al back to life.

23. R.D. Bartucci - January 15, 2011

I herewith propose that every congresscritter and officer of the federal executive be required at all times to wear the Starfleet Security red velour shirt, with a bull’s eye on the back just for emphasis.

With maybe a pretty congressional page – male or female, I’m not finicky – walking around behind him/her and whispering: “Any time, anywhere, our snipers can drop you. Have a nice day!”

I’d put that right up with requiring those SWAT and HRT squaddies to turn in their black fatigues and masks and Kraut helmets and respond to “emergencies” instead in clown costumes right out of the circus.

Sure, they can keep their Kevlar underwear. But if they get to wear a mask, it has to be greasepaint white, with a big red rubber nose and lots of orange fake hair around it.

To the extent that they have any lawful duty to perform, let them look fucking ridiculous while they’re doing it.

24. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 16, 2011

I admit that I’d rather be a subject of King Lucas of Traskon rather than a voter under the Mombassa Messiah. After all, Lucas considers an un-armed populace a target, and an armed populace as his citizens. But I STILL don’t like monarchies.

As to Paracops and tha Paratime Commission, and governmental oversight, the less said, the better. Governmental oversight is like letting the fox monitor the henhouse- I can assure you it’s a bad idea. You quickly run out of hens. Now, I like the goal of the Pracops, but giving ANY group the kind of power they had just rubs me wrong.

25. R.D. Bartucci - January 16, 2011

Point taken about the Paratime Police (about whom, remember, Piper was writing in the ’50s and ’60 with hopes of selling to John W. Campbell as his editor-of-first-choice because *Astounding* paid the best rates).

But you didn’t like my proposal that the functionaries of civil government be required to dress in fashions distinctive of the special regard in which the private citizenry hold them?

26. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 16, 2011

Oh, I like it all right. I just forgot to re-read the comment- I’d started on this part, got called away from the computer, and when I returned…….

Now, to the required attire of Politicians and other public functionaries;
TSA Personnel- dressed as Red Skelton’s Weary Willie (? that sad clown dude he used)
DHS- As the Killer Klowns from Outer Space
FBI’s HRT- The clown from Stephen King’s “IT”
Average SWAT and other tactical response teams- BOZO the Clown. I also want their vans to look like the ones that disgorge 20 clowns when it looks like it can only hold 4.
COngresscritters in Starfleet Security Red with targets is a GREAT idea, and I love the cruel little addendum of the page’s whisper! Nice touch.
I think judges should be required to dress in French Maid outfits (male or female) from an S&M porn movie.
The President must dress as Howdy Doody, complete with giant Reaganesque blushes painted on their cheeks, and mouth-lines added. (VERY appropriate for Obama, being as he’s the Teleprompter-in-Chief (a puppet fpr speechwriters)

27. R.D. Bartucci - January 16, 2011

Ooh, Kowabunga, Cowboy Neale!

Can we have the White House Press Secretary uniformed in the leather harness of an S&M “bottom,” complete with one of those red rubber ball gags?

It’d make the question-and-answer sessions so much more entertaining….

28. Grant - January 16, 2011

As Barrack would say “Words; Just Words!”

29. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 16, 2011

RD- works for me!! But we should require that the press wear the same ball gags. That way, the press conferences will be (finally) useful- they will have silenced the most vocally overactive, intellectually useless people on the planet.

30. Eric Oppen - January 17, 2011

Alcatraz? Wuss central! I have a better idea.

The French still own French Guiana…you know, where Devil’s Island is? We could pay them a reasonable rate for re-opening les bagnes, and ship our BOR-ignoring politicians off there. Let them rot in the humid hell of Devil’s Island; let them be eaten alive by mosquitoes; let them be scourged by malaria (no quinine for them!) and Yellow Jack!

Or, if that doesn’t suit, talk the Russians into re-opening the Kolyma prison camps, and let them earn their keep by mining gold in a place so far North that Santa Claus wouldn’t go there.

31. al perez - January 17, 2011

Texas state legislature only meets for about two, maybe three months every other year. Keeps ‘em out of trouble. Perhaps we should request that Congress only meet four months a year unless
a war is actually declared and that they physically reside in their home districts at least 90 continuous days and a total of 150 a year. During that time they could not enjoy office allowances or tax deductions, or other reimbursement for expenses consequent to their membership in Congress.

32. al perez - January 17, 2011

“Request” of course is me engaging in understatement. Kinda like Jesse James not pulling pistol out of holster when he requested a bank’s money.

33. J. Colonnesi - February 22, 2011

The problem with an enforcement clause is the same one that guts the ability to impeach from having real meaning.

You wind up relying on goverment to police itself.

For an enforcement clause to work it there has to be a means for the individual to pursue it, without relying on politicians. To wit, I propose the following addition to your enforceemnt clause.

Any individual who accuses an elected or appointed official of an attempt to violate a portion of the bill of rights shall be allowed to bring those charges before a grand jury. If said grand jury supports the charges, the individual can elect to prosecute the official themselves and the goverment will be required to pay the individual for any expenses incurred in prosecuting the official. In the case where an official is found guilty, everything they have of value is to be forfitted and divided between to those who prosecuted them and those affected by thier crime in addition to any criminal penalties they receive.

34. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - February 27, 2011

DAMN!! I like the way you think, J. Colonnesi. Kudos, SIr or Madam.

35. Regis Heriot - April 15, 2011

Bring back the Code Duello, and hold the survivors harmless in the death of their opponents.

36. Paul Passarelli - November 18, 2011

Hey there,

I’m running for Senate from CT and I’m down with that!

37. El Neil - November 18, 2011

Good, Paul, spread it around!

38. christian meister - December 3, 2011

please read http://www.meisterforsheriff.com and contact me – thanks

39. christian meister - December 3, 2011

please read http://www.meisterforsheriff.com and contact me at meisterforsheriff@gmai.com – thanks

40. just a guy - June 4, 2012

There are no sharks in San Fran bay. It’s too cold.