putting the lawyer-hat on for a second
This is the single worst piece of constitutional interpretation I've ever heard. Watch the video. On an empty stomach. Watch it on an empty stomach.
You realize, the same damn insane absurd ridiculous argument could be applied to the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. Well, it doesn't say we HAVE the freedom of speech. Jesus, we're really living in 1984. It's happened. (At least the fucking naziprickbag couldn't say it with a straight face -- perhaps that represents a little bit of hope. Or maybe he always has a suppressed half-grin-snort when he's justifying totalitarianism in the very chambers of Congress.)
(When I said this to a friend, he said: " Is it the worst piece of constitutional interpretation, or the best piece of rhetorical judo since "I'm rubber, you're glue"?")
You realize, the same damn insane absurd ridiculous argument could be applied to the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. Well, it doesn't say we HAVE the freedom of speech. Jesus, we're really living in 1984. It's happened. (At least the fucking naziprickbag couldn't say it with a straight face -- perhaps that represents a little bit of hope. Or maybe he always has a suppressed half-grin-snort when he's justifying totalitarianism in the very chambers of Congress.)
(When I said this to a friend, he said: " Is it the worst piece of constitutional interpretation, or the best piece of rhetorical judo since "I'm rubber, you're glue"?")