|
What would the Liberal reaction be if other laws in California were simply declared null and void, based on nothing more than personal whim and a convoluted interpretation of the law? If, as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom claims, he has no responsibility to uphold the law (Proposition 22) because he feels it conflicts with California's Constitution, then perhaps California's restrictive gun laws -- which conflict with the US Constitution -- should be abolished as well. "Perhaps Mayor Newsom has a point," Arnold said at a press conference in Sacremento. "Perhaps it really is okay to throw away a law you don't agree with if you can claim a higher law conflicts with it. Therefore, I am announcing that restrictions on guns in this state will no longer be in effect as of now." An angry murmur arose in the audience, comprised mostly of reporters. "I find that Ca-lee-fornia's overly restrictive gun laws conflict with the Second Amendment of the Constitution -- the highest law of the land -- which says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From this moment forward, guns of all types will be sold without restrictive background checks or licenses needed, following the example set by Mayor Newsom of San Francisco. I just want to thank the Mayor for pointing out that elected officials have no responsibility to uphold any laws they don't agree with." Red-faced, angry reporters began shouting questions, but were stunned into silence when the Governator reached under the podium and brought out a prototype Alliant Techsystems OICW rifle with two barrels. "Something like this, which holds thirty rounds of 5.56mm and six 20mm high-explosive rounds, makes a handy personal defense weapon. And it's even ergonomically designed! Now everyone in Ca-lee-fornia who can afford one can own one, no questions asked." Arnold posed at the podium, weapon at the ready. "Any questions?" Once the Governator's suspension of gun laws went into effect, Liberals throughout the state of California began literally spontaneously combusting from sheer outrage as gun enthusiasts from around the country jammed the stores seeking newly-deregulated weapons. Parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco were heavily damaged by wildfires, spread by crowds of detonating left-leaning sign-wavers. The crowds had gathered in screaming protest of Arnold's "reckless disregard for the law," as one protester yelled just before bursting into flames with a smoky "FOOF!", setting two other people and a cafe awning on fire. Human rights groups advised protesters to make their signs out of non-flammable materials. In Washington DC, President Bush was once again defending himself against personal attacks by Democrats at a press conference when the story broke. "Mr. President!" shouted a reporter. "Don't you think you'd better do something about this situation in California at once? Liberals all over the state are spontaneously combusting!" "FOOF!" said the reporter... |
| Dave Belisaurius February 20, 2004 03:29 PM PST Too funny! | ||
| American February 21, 2004 03:31 PM PST Get over it. The law is what the court(s) say it is. That's the American system. You may not like it, but that's how we choose to run the country. You right-wingers have nothing to say about it - you don't appoint the judges. | ||
| JM February 21, 2004 03:41 PM PST It's true; we've been living under an unelected krytocracy for too long! We need to stop judges from rewriting our laws whenever they feel the urge. | ||
| American February 21, 2004 11:36 PM PST You are fighting yesterday's battle. The judiciary has already established that it is the highest level of government. Surely you don't require examples. Also, federal judges (and some state highest-court judges) are appointed for life. They can be removed only by impeachment, which won't happen based on their decisions and edicts. I repeat, there are no longer any such things as statutory or constitutional law. The law is simply whatever the court says it is. | ||
| Robert McClelland February 23, 2004 01:33 PM PST >We need to stop judges from rewriting our laws whenever they feel the urge. Of course, that is only happening in bizarro Republican world. The judges are only interpreting the laws, not re-writing them. And if the laws are not being interpreted the way you think they should be it only illustrates the weak case your side presents to the judges. | ||
| CavalierX February 23, 2004 04:38 PM PST I wish I could be as blind as you are, Robert. I really do. The fact is that we are at the mercy of courts which "interpret" laws to mean anything they like, and even (as in the case of Taxachussetts) dictate that the legislature must write a law to include gay "marriage" by May. The judicial branch exists (in these cases) to decide whether a given law is in accordance with the Constitution, NOT to tell the Legislature what laws to write and how to write them. | ||
| American February 24, 2004 11:34 AM PST I repeat, this horse has long since left the barn. This country is now run by the judiciary. We must all adapt to the new system. | ||
| Robert McClelland February 24, 2004 04:10 PM PST >NOT to tell the Legislature what laws to write and how to write them. Nice goalpost shifting, Jim. To clear up my point though, you are admitting that the courts do not RE-WRITE laws as you claimed earlier. Is that correct? | ||
| Name February 24, 2004 04:30 PM PST Nice try, Robert. You're trying to say that if he hands you a pen and dictates a letter for you to write, the letter isn't from him. Bah! | ||
| Robert McClelland February 24, 2004 06:54 PM PST Nice try nothing. Jim said that the courts are re writing laws. That means, according to Jim, there are laws in existence that are being changed by the courts. Now Jim has backpeddaled to say that the courts are writing laws. I'll address that point when Jim agrees that he was wrong to say the courts are re-writing the laws or ponies up some evidence of the courts actually re-writing a law. | ||
| JM February 24, 2004 08:36 PM PST Now you're just being a troll, Robert, desperate to avoid facing facts. Funny how you can try to argue a distinction between a court dictating how laws must be written or altered and courts physically writing the laws, but can't even notice the difference between the initials JM and the name Jim. Give it up, Robert -- we're living under a krytocracy already. I already gave you an example. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ordered the Mass. Legislature to write a law giving gay people the right to "marry". They DO have the alternative of creating a specific ban, but that's unlikely to happen. It'll just get overturned in the courts anyway. | ||
| Robert McClelland February 24, 2004 10:47 PM PST >but can't even notice the difference between the initials JM and the name Jim. Oops, sorry, Joe. I don't know where I got the name Jim from. As for the rest of this, I was only responding you your statement that the courts are re-writing laws. That is not the case. Whether or not they are dictating that laws be written is another matter that I have no knowledge of. | ||
| Adam Crocker March 3, 2004 05:40 PM PST Er...what was the point or humourous part of this article again? | ||
| JM March 3, 2004 10:01 PM PST Humor? What humor? This actually happened, I tell you! | ||
| Leave a Comment: |