There's an old saying that if your wife says she loves you, and you have to think about whether you love her, then you probably don't love her. I think the same holds true regarding the constitution. If someone asks you, "Do you think this or that is Constitutional," and you have to think about it, chances are you don't respect the Constitution if you are wise to it, or you are completely ignorant about the Constitution.
Recently Republican Senator Tom Coburn proposed this question to Supreme Court Nominee Elenor Kagan: " If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day," and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, does that violate the commerce clause?"
She said, "But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether -- the question of whether it's Constitutional. And I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless."
Well, no it would not be wrong if the law was, say, unconstitutional. And, according to the 10th amendment, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.
You know, I find it funny that Kagan can't say outright that she thinks a court can't strike a law down just because it thinks the law is stupid, when Kagan herself believes that abortion laws had to be struck down because they were stupid. She believes a woman has a right to protect her reproductive rights, yet she doesn't think a person has a right to protect her digestive rights.
New York has already proposed laws that would make it illegal to eat trans fat or salt. Others have talked about banning people from eating fatty foods or fried foods such as french fries and Kentucky FRIED chicken.
This is another attempt by the left, the progressives, who have been insidious since the days of that monster of a president Woodrow Wilson (who by the way was the 1st president to speak bad of the Constitution) to change the Constitution, or ignore it, in order to get their ideologies passed through Congress.
It has been a slow moving process for them to turn America from a capitalist country into a communist one. And they have made slow progress without ever admitting they are progressives and liberals because neither of those words are popular, as conservative and traditionalist are.
And every liberal and progressive presidential candidate (from FDR to McCain) has run pretending to be a conservative. So you know it's not popular what they are doing. And they don't care, because whenever they gain control of the Washington, they pass laws the people don't want, like Amnesty and cap and trade and healthcare reform.
You can go back to FDR and note his Recovery Act that set prices and created the ideal socialistic program, yet thankfully that program was swiped down by the supreme court, although by the time that happened it was too late, and the depression was prolonged because of it.
And while you know it's not Constitutional to do certain things, and it's not Constitutional to filibuster a presidential nominee, yet it was okay when democrats filibustered hundreds of G.W.Bush's court nominees.
And, if it's Constitutional for the dems to filibuster court nominees, this new one is so out of whack with America, has such a misunderstanding about our own Constitution (of which she has no respect for by the way), that I think if this nominee is not stopped in her tracks by the rightful democratic process, this would be a good place for republicans to filibuster.
They have to do it. Kagan is evil. Kagan is not evil by communist and marxist and progressive standards (those are all the same things by the way), but he is evil if you are a constitutionalist, traditionalist and conservative. It is if you love your freedom and want to keep it.
Salt anyone? Sorry, it's against the law.