Every man feels that perception gives him an invincible belief of the existence of that which he perceives; and that this belief is not the effect of reasoning, but the immediate consequence of perception. When philosophers have wearied themselves and their readers with their speculations upon this subject, they can neither strengthen this belief, nor weaken it; nor can they shew how it is produced. It puts the philosopher and the peasant upon a level; and neither of them can give any other reason for believing his senses, than that he finds it impossible for him to do otherwise.
“I am,” replied former Texas Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke to ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir’s question. If, anyway, “it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”
“Hell, yes,” he added, later in last week’s Democratic presidential debate.
“We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
Yesterday, I notedthat U.S. Senator Kamala Harris seemed oblivious to any consideration of the constitutional rights of citizens to “bear arms.” Today, consider the constitutional work-around both Democrat presidential contenders support. You see, when they talk about confiscating your guns, they do not intend to go to all the hard work of changing the law of the land. They plan, instead, merely to change the High Court — something the president, with a majority of Congress, can do — and have the new justices re-visit the legal interpretation.
O’Rourke “spoke openly after launching his run,” informsPolitico, “about expanding the high court to as many as 15 judges.” Fox Newsreported that he “is open to making drastic changes to fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court — essentially court-packing, with a twist.”
The “twist” is the scheme that I wrote about in March. In a bizarre nod to bipartisanship, O’Rourke would have Republicans select five justices, Democrats select five more, and then have those ten judges select yet another five.
Only tradition and public opinion have kept the highest court in the land from previous hijackings.
Is Republican opposition all that stands in the way now?
Gives a whole new meaning to the question: Are you packing?
Every government that has cheapened its currency has been knavishly false to a trust; so have those which, like ours, use public funds to subsidize large-scale gambling and swindling.
The right — or, very wrong — story is Senator Harris (D–Calif.) laughing, sure. But the only thing naked is her powerlust.
Why refer to the opening of the novel The Fountainhead? To call attention to the Chortling Politician.
Harris isn’t the only politician openly contemptuous of treating the Constitution as worth sober assent. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare’s health insurance mandate, responded with “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
To some politicians — who I wish I could say did not include the current president — the Constitution is so passé, so insignificant, that bringing up the subject as a possible limit to what they seek to do is, well, chuckleworthy.
On her campaign website, Harris assures us that should Congress fail “to send comprehensive gun safety legislation” to her “desk within her first 100 days as president” she would “take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe.”
Included in such a demanded “comprehensive” bill is “universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden, on last Thursday’s Democratic presidential candidates’ debate stage, challenged the notion of executive orders to ban assault weapons. At issue? Constitutionality. She smiled wide, all teeth and bright eyes, with “Hey, Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say, ‘Yes, we can.’”
And she laughed and laughed.
Oh, the wit.
She then explained how she “thinks about” the issue. The Constitution and the rule of law are not part of her thinking.
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In 1849 on this same day in September, Harriet Tubman escaped to freedom in Philadelphia, but soon returned to Maryland to rescue her family. She made at least 13 trips into the slave-owning South to liberate more than 70 slaves before the Civil War (in which she served as a spy for the North).
Former Vice-President Joe Biden was put on the spot, again, about race. During last Thursday’s presidential candidates’ debate, ABC newscaster Lindsey Davis askedwhat responsibility Americans should “take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?”
Triple, Biden said, “the amount of money we spend. . . .”
On “very poor schools, the Title I schools.”
From $15 to $45 billion a year.
Dodging the reparations question, he offered a four-part plan for educating poor children that was very . . . educational.
Biden’s second solution is “make sure that we . . . help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home.”
Send in more psychologists!
Step three is to “make sure that . . . 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds go to school. School. Not daycare. School.”
Sounds like forcing every parent to put their 3-year-old into school. Or just “poor” 3-year-olds? Neither sounds good.
If my elementary school math still holds, next comes policy objective No. 4.
And it’s a doozy.
“We bring social workers in to homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children,” Sleepy Joe declared. Because as he explained “they”— wealth-challenged parents — “don’t know quite what to do.”
But Biden does. “Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, make sure that kids hear words.”
The former VEEP explained that children from “a very poor background will hear four million words fewer spoken by the time they get [to school].”
Language skills matter. But do we really want the next president to station a social worker under every kid’s bed to make sure the record player isn’t skipping?
September 16 marks the Independence Days for Mexico (celebrating the declaration of independence from Spain in 1810) and Papua New Guinea (commemorating the exit from Australia in 1975).
September 16 marks the Independence Days for Mexico (celebrating the declaration of independence from Spain in 1810) and Papua New Guinea (commemorating the exit from Australia in 1975).
