John McCain at his fieriest before 'don't ask, don't tell' vote**
GALLERY
After the House voted to repeal the policy, the Senate took on the issue and also voted to lift the 17-year-old ban on gays in the military.
INTERACTIVE: 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
View a timeline of the policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
POST A COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID,cewest246, will be displayed with your comment. |
Discussion Policy
By Dana Milbank
Saturday, December 18, 2010; 5:48 PMComment to this article in WP:
"Don't ask, Don't Tell" repealed. Sen. McCain and Constitutional Principles:
Sen. McCain is correct in his anger. This Constitutional-Teapartier-Republican, Thanks him very much - for continued supporting 'We the People's against Obama's repeated violations of Amendment XIV in favor of his infamous 'rights of the special group' this time named homosexual. Just to review, other names include: Union anything-anywhere, Chrysler, Illegal college student, illegal alien of any description - key name 'illegal', the "egregious" wealthy, private business that earns $251,000; etc.
Naturally, Sen. Lieberman and all accompanying cohorts including the "Pentagon Study" [what did they expect a soldier to answer!!!]; ignorance of the principles our Constitution is written to support.
Isn't "The Number's Game" great!! You get to say anything you want too - no 'Religion, Morality, history - no respect or regard for personal choice or privacy; and all for one, small, set of people who make their own, individual choices regarding life's values in personal relationships; for 100% of All Servicemen and women in the United States of America! And a regulation at that!
Of course, this "Social Justice" of the Obama-types; continues to ignore
Principles of the constitution" as follows: "(1) It may be contrary to a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
(2) It may not be based on one of the powers delegated to the government under the Constitution.
(8) It may have been intended to be applied selectively, or have come to be applied selectively, in violation of the equal protection provision of the Constitution that all laws must be applied uniformly."
Also, of course, the Senate, like the house may be noticing the absence of Oath of Office of Obama-Socialists; along with unConstitutional applications: "- An unconstitutional statute is not a law, no matter how vigorously it may be enforced. Enforcement does not make what is enforced the law. What is enforced is a regime. In a constitutional republic, the law and the regime should coincide. If they do not, the regime is not law but anti-law."
Sec. Gates And Sen. Lieberman are being side-blinded, through the same #13 Alinsky tactic of freeze. Like many elected members of Congress, both our founding documents are given lip-service - except by anyone attached to this President. Mr. Obama doesn't care about principle - just 'is the means correct for wind direction. Or allowing personal choice for the few, going to rule over the, since its the military - the 'Code of Conduct', 100% of all service-individuals - who shall receive the dictates of "Provides for repeal of the current Department of Defense (DOD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, to be effective 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has received DOD's comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) certify..."!
Sen. McCain thank you for your anger - too bad the bunch of Senators allow blindness for our founding documents to rule over the importance of occupying desks in the Senate chamber.
Thank you, and
PS this Patriot is as angry as you are, Sen, McCain!
**Below are other areas of constitutional principles that are or probable anti-law / unConstitutional'
This is available from www.constitution.org by Jon Roland and several hundred others...:
- Persons do, however, have the power, and can delegate the power, to disable, or partially restrict, the exercise of those rights by some individual persons when their exercise would conflict with the exercise of the rights of other persons, to strike a balance among the exercise of their rights by all persons.
A republic or other democracy is nonconstitutional if any legislative act supersedes any conflicting act that precedes it, including any act or unwritten principle which may be called a “constitution
- Only individual persons or corporate “persons” which are composed of individual persons may be the subject of legal process. Inanimate objects and living objects not capable of conducting their own defense in a court of law may not be parties to an action at law.
- Defense of the state and the constitution includes defense against threats of all kinds, including invasion or attack, insurrection, criminal acts, natural or manmade disasters, or public ignorance or apathy.
- In a constitutional republic, the constitution is the supreme law, superior to all other public acts, whether by officials or private citizens. Any statute, regulation, executive order, or court ruling which is inconsistent with that supreme law and not derived from it is unconstitutional and null and void from inception.
There are several ways in which statutes or other official acts may be unconstitutional:
Why would the repeal of a military individual's silence regarding sexual preference be a 'Religious and Morality" act or Unonstitutional?
(1) It may be contrary to a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
(2) It may not be based on one of the powers delegated to the government under the Constitution.
(8) It may have been intended to be applied selectively, or have come to be applied selectively, in violation of the equal protection provision of the Constitution that all laws must be applied uniformly.
- An unconstitutional statute is not a law, no matter how vigorously it may be enforced. Enforcement does not make what is enforced the law. What is enforced is a regime. In a constitutional republic, the law and the regime should coincide. If they do not, the regime is not law but anti-law.
- Whenever any person is confronted with a situation in which two or more official acts are in conflict, he has the duty to know which is the superior one, and to obey or help enforce the superior one, which, if one of them is the constitution, means to obey or help enforce the constitution. This duty cannot be delegated to another person: not to a superior, a court, or a legal advisor. It is not a defense that one was ignorant of the law or just doing one’s job or following orders. This is sometimes called the Principle of Nuremberg.
The judgement of the consistency of an official act with the constitution is called constitutional review. When this duty is performed by a judge, it is called judicial review. It is not a power of government but the exercise of a duty of citizenship.
- Any act performed by an agent of government which is unconstitutional is illegal, and while performing that act the person ceases to be an agent of government or to have any official status, regardless of what trappings of office or color of law he may project. It is also almost certainly a deprivation of the civil rights of someone, and therefore also a violation of one or more of the constitutional criminal laws against doing so.
- Any act performed by an agent of government which is unconstitutional is illegal, and while performing that act the person ceases to be an agent of government or to have any official status, regardless of what trappings of office or color of law he may project. It is also almost certainly a deprivation of the civil rights of someone, and therefore also a violation of one or more of the constitutional criminal laws against doing so.
- Any act performed by an agent of government which is unconstitutional is illegal, and while performing that act the person ceases to be an agent of government or to have any official status, regardless of what trappings of office or color of law he may project. It is also almost certainly a deprivation of the civil rights of someone, and therefore also a violation of one or more of the constitutional criminal laws against doing so.
- Statutes passed with the intent that they not be enforced uniformly, but at the discretion of law enforcement agents, are unconstitutional. They violate the Constitutional requirement for equal protection of the laws, and constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to executive officials.
- The natural and civil rights identified in the first eight amendments to the Constitution apply to all levels and branches of government, and, indeed, to all governments of persons everywhere, in all nations and times. They do not establish such rights, which precede the Constitution, but only recognize them. They are not just restrictions on the Congress of the United States, but on all governments everywhere.
