I was at a town hall and asked if he (Frank A. LoBiondo, Congressman for the 2nd District of New Jersey ) could tell the people assembled article 1 section 1 of the US Constitution – he did not know it – he confused it with the 1st amendment so I asked him to tell me the fist amendment – he told me he couldn’t articulate it – FIRE CONGRESS – They don’t even know the rights of the document they swore to uphold protect and defend !!!!! Christopher M. Weber – Patriotic Resistance circa 1775
LoBiondo doesn’t know the US Constitution
25 comments on “LoBiondo doesn’t know the US Constitution”
Leave a Reply
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 2:51 am
@AdrianBurka: I feel like I’m responding to a five year old; the ad hominems sure add weight to your tenuous argument.
the preamble has absolutely no legal effect whatsoever. Not a single case was ever decided based on the preamble. Your “literal” reading of the constitution is what produced cases like Dred Scott and Lochner v. New York.
You sound as if you live in a fantasy world.
AdrianBurka
June 22, 2010 at 2:56 am
@ieodksnw787
” I was simply trying to dissuade you from relying on the preamble b/c 1) it’s not part of the Constitution”
You fucking dolt, it is part of the Constitution, and it is the FIRST part of the Constitution.
The only appropriate interpretation of the Consitution: literal. Not “originalism”, not judicial pragmatism. Laws must be OBJECTIVE so that they can be UNDERSTOOD and FOLLOWED.
pavorl69
June 22, 2010 at 3:06 am
Ballsy dude; good job!
Bossmanrocks
June 22, 2010 at 3:16 am
This guy who knows the Constitution inside and out should run for office.
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 4:12 am
@1badmonster no, you’re putting words in my mouth. I was simply trying to dissuade you from relying on the preamble b/c 1) it’s not part of the Constitution and 2) “we the people”, from an originalist prospective that you want to adopt, is not a legitimate representation of the people.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 4:50 am
@ieodksnw787 Wow now you’re showing your denseness. The ninth and tenth are very clear..EVERYTHING NOT DELEGATED to the federal government is not theirs to exercise. It’s not hard, the federal government may only do what is enumerated and all else is excluded.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 5:08 am
@ieodksnw787 Now you’re regurgitating lies. Voting rights were extended to more than “land owning white males”, but even if true that would only lessen the validity of the federal government to make laws, not increase it. You need to make up your mind, either the federal government has very broad powers under the US constitution, or the US constitution is invalid due to it being framed by a very select group. Do you not see that these are the two arguments you’ve put forth?
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 5:16 am
@1badmonster yes it could be used to discern original intent. At the same time, it could be read as a simple phrase used to give legitimacy to the Constitution. After all, “we the people” at the time only included land-owning white males; an originalist reading would not comport w/ modern times. The 9th and 10th Amendment are incredibly vague and few cases have actually delineated the rights retained by the people.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 5:37 am
@ieodksnw787 @ieodksnw787 You are correct that “We the people” is not part of the US constitution, but it does show intent and thus needs to be applied in properly construing the US constitution. This is why the Bill of Rights were added, particulalry the 9th and 10th. It does not matter if SCOTUS looks to these in it’s decisions, it is obligated to do so.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 6:37 am
@ieodksnw787 You are correct that “We the people” is not part of the US constitution, but it does show intent and thus needs to be applied in properly construing the US constitution. This is why the Bill of Rights were added, particulalry the 9th and 10th. It does not matter if SCOTUS looks to these in it’s decisions, it is obligated to do so.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
@ieodksnw787 UM..how do I say this simply? No, SCOTUS may not enlarge the powers of the federal government either. As I said earlier the constitution is one of delegated powers and nowhere in Article 3 was authority to expand the reach of the federal government granted. The authority of SCOTUS extends only to that which comes under the US constitution. ALL ELSE IS USURPATION.
hpprinter12345
June 22, 2010 at 7:04 am
@ieodksnw787 The Founders DID know what they were doing – Remarkable men indeed – The Government that governs least governs best & A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 7:41 am
@hpprinter12345 and your point is? That you’re against this practice? That would effectively bring the US gov’t to a halt. Today the bulk of gov’t activity is via executive and independent agencies (e.g., FAA, FTC, NTSB). They have the power to “legislate” (via rules and regulation), execute and review.
Reading ArtI(i) strictly, congress would have to take up all these responsibilities.
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 8:34 am
@1badmonster except the Supreme Court can and has extended congressional power in numerous instances. Powers under the commerce clause and spending clause have been steadily expanded for over a century.
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 9:23 am
@1badmonster “We the people” is not part of the Constitution. And the “or to the people” in the 10th Am clause has been construed narrowly to the point that it’s a nullity. Unenumerated powers are defaulted to the states.
In fact, the 10th Am itself is pretty much useless, so few cases have been decided on 10th Am grounds.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 9:38 am
Congress may only act in the capacity of the power granted to it as the agent of the people. It may not extend it’s power, because that power belongs to the people or the states and only they can through the Article 5 amendment process extend power.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
Congress may only act in the capacity of the power granted to it as the agent of the people. It may not extend it’s power, because that power belongs to the people or the states and only they can through the Article 5 amendment process extend power.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 11:06 am
We the people +The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
1badmonster
June 22, 2010 at 11:49 am
Congress may only act in the capacity of the power granted to it as the agent of the people. It may not extend it’s power, because that power belongs to the people or the states and only they can through the Article 5 amendment process extend power.
hpprinter12345
June 22, 2010 at 12:05 pm
@ieodksnw787 Precisely my point sir!
ieodksnw787
June 22, 2010 at 12:42 pm
your strict reading of Art I(i) just does not conform to reality. For the past century, Congress has delegated broad legislative power to executive administrative agencies.
Dealify
June 22, 2010 at 1:39 pm
just don’t wear that dumb du-rag
tubecat72072
June 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I’m quite impressed! Our president probably doesn’t even know half as much as you do. I’m still studying the entire Constitution. It really is important that all citizens know it, but most of all, understand WHY it was written! A majority of our elected reps are a joke. Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano 2012!
WeAreGeo
June 22, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Dude, you get high marks from me. The letter after someone’s name means nothing when they all eat at the same restaurant after work.
If only more of our elected officials had a clue about the document which allows them their job in the first place. Ah, what a country we would be.
Amen, Hallelujiah, and Hell Yes.
TheHylander1314
June 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Glad to see another civicly minded citizen! It really isn’t that hard to understand. The tough part is unlearning that which has ben learned.