Ashford: No 14th Amendment for you!

Ashford takes part in First Class sit-in
Ashford takes part in First Class sit-in

2nd District Democrat Rep Brad Ashford was apparently not part of the Democrat sleep over on the floor of the House of Representatives last night.

But Ashford says he was with them in spirit.

Ashford says he wants to, “prohibit suspected terrorists on the federal ‘no fly’ list from purchasing weapons that can be used to commit acts of violence against innocent civilians.”

He goes on to say, “Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is a commonsense way to strengthen our national security and ensure that acts of violence are not perpetrated on our communities.”

But that isn’t what the proposed bill does.

People on the No-Fly list aren’t “terrorists”.
They are people put on a list.
Some for good reasons. Some for NOT good reasons.

And the “not good reasons” part is why we have the 5th & 14th Amendments — the government can’t just deny a right (in this case, the 2nd Amednment) without due process. A bureaucrat putting you on a list, generally does not rise to that.

So it would be a nice idea for Ashford to consider what happens when you start to deny Constitutional rights just because someone is on a secret list.

Because you never know what will happen once you find YOURSELF on a list.
And then find out what rights Brad Ashford says you no longer have.

 

“I don’t think I was ready to be chair.”

Very interesting follow-up on Jane Kleeb’s Bernie Bros embarrassment at the NDP convention.

Finally, the OWH wrote about it — and the Los Angeles Times picked it up as well — and how the Bernie Bros were sooooooo sorry about what happened.

They claim it was a misunderstanding, and uh…. the Latino activist, Marta Nieves, they toppled will be reinstated.

But let’s hear HER side of it:

There was an attempt to put in place a person in the key leadership of the Latino Caucus through a less than procedurally proper manner. Non- members took over the process and elected someone who had never been a part of the caucus and had no knowledge of the positive, effective nature of the caucus leadership and function. This same plan was carried out through out the State Convention.

Now if you only read the LJS, you haven’t seen any of this, so Leavenworth St. is happy to help you.

Then again, the LJS did quote Jane before she changed her mind about running for chair:

“I know I need to learn the inner workings of the party before I would lead it.”

Looks like she was right.

 

SCOTUS

President Obama’s confusion about what the Supreme Court does would be cute if he weren’t a lawyer.

So what’s shameless about the President is that he knows better. He says that the Supreme Court of the United States is somehow making a decision based on their social beliefs — or what the country is “supposed to be like”.

What a freaking crock.

It is Congress’s job to make laws. It is the President’s job to carry them out.

But in the end, the laws — and the edicts from the President — HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. If they don’t, SCOTUS tells them to knock it off.

The President may think it would be awesome to make Shintoism the religion of the country. He may think that is what our country needs.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court would strike down such a Presidential edict.

And the gist of the recent Supreme Court ruling is also, that the President’s executive action here is an overreach of his executive authority.

So the President saying, “This ruling isn’t what our country should look like…” is actually, “The court won’t let ME decide what the laws are.”

Mind you, the President makes great exasperations about “the country we aspire to be,” but the courts here aren’t addressing that.

What they do address is Obama’s ability, under the Constitution, to decide unilaterally, what the laws should be and how they should operate.

And oh by the way, this decision, which looks at the Separation of Powers between the President and Congress, will come back to the SCOTUS…after the next President picks the next justice.

And President Obama is crying that if only Judge Garland could be confirmed by the Senate. he could get his way.

In case you were wondering how important the election is.

 

Keep it up

@LeavenworthSt on the Twitter.

Leavenworth St. on The Facebook.

31 comments

  1. repenting lawyer says:

    Due process does not always require a hearing before action, dangerous weapons in the hands of allegedly dangerous people are precisely the type of case where subsequent challenge satisfies due process. If the bar is to purchase of assault weapons, 2nd Amendment does not, as read by the Circuits, protect ownership of those weapons in any event.
    There is a rather large scholarly literature on the impact of public opinion on SCOTUS, jury is not in, but POTUS is not off the wall. Conservatives often blamed Kennedy’s opinions on”Greenhouse effect.” Not I think right but less kind to the Justice thanPOTUS was to the Court. As Mr Dooley noted “The Constitution may nofollow the flag but the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”

    • The Grundle King says:

      I can definitely see why you are repenting…I can’t imagine the contortion of conscience that would lead one to abridge certain rights based solely upon suspicion and fear. I was young an naive once, and in the fear that followed 9/11, I felt that the provisions of the Patriot Act were just because our government was just trying to protect us.

      Right?

      Well, as it turns out, not so much. Sure they might snag a random terrorist here and there…but the attack in Orlando has proven they don’t catch them all, even when they’re sitting across the table from said terrorists. And in the mean time, our privacy…our rights…have been trampled upon.

      And while I may have supported such acts when I was young and naive, I grew up and got a little wiser. You, on the other hand, appear to be headed in the other direction. Feel free to walk that path alone.

  2. Nebraska Democrat says:

    The nastiness from the Bernie Sanders campaign is unparalleled with anything we’ve ever seen before. It’s like BTO was a Gremlin and someone threw water on him and he multiplied 50 times over.

    • Anonymous says:

      Best BTO story ever, in 2012 Bob Kerrey met Brian T. Osborn and after an unusual conversation Bob said to his staff “Does that guy work for me? If so, fire him and fire whoever hired him.”

      • In the Know says:

        Tom,
        You’ve told that joke so many times, with different different names, that most people who know you consider it as good as your signature.

      • Tom Havelka, you need a new writer. Your jokes are old as the hills.
        As for Hannah? She doesn’t even live in this state anymore. If she pops her head up around these parts it is only to exercise her privilege of being a professional victim. She has always excelled at that.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Have to agree w/ BTO on Lisa Hannah, with the exception of one thing…while being a victim may be her profession, “professional” is not a word I would associate with her.

    • Another Nebraska Democrat says:

      Sounds like someone is a little bitter because one of the kids ran off with their ruby slippers after Bernies house fell on them.

      The convention was amazing. It seemed like every time Bernie’s kids tossed out a bucket of water, trying to clean the place up, another old ogre just melted away.

    • The old farts are complaining that all of the fresh, young, Bernie activists that they have been begging to come into the party for years now … did. These kids expected to have a place at the table and the old regime tried to deny it to them. A food fight ensued. What did they expect?

      Despite the LJS and OWH ignoring the fact that I was a candidate for NDP State Chair, when it came down to the time for the vote I had enough support that I could swing it one way or the other. Jane won by 42 votes. Had I stayed in, all I needed were 22 votes and Chuck Hassebrook would have been elected. I had quite a bit more than that, and Jane knew it. She made me an offer that I accepted. I threw my support to her and she won. Chuck ignored me and he lost.

      My support cost Jane five concessions, that I believe she didn’t have that much of a problem accepting. We will be holding her feet to the fire to ensure that she keeps her word. I believe that she, with an army of Bernie Revolutionaries behind her, are going to be the biggest pain in the ass the NEGOP has ever seen. I’m going to be one of them, and yeah, they did toss water on me. Look out!

      As for Jane’s last minute support for Ron Kaminski over Bud Pettigrew for National Committeeman? Any fool could see that having the support of leagues of union laborers is worth one hell of a lot more to the party than a wall full of photos of Bud Pettigrew standing next to important people. It was a no-brainer, and Jane has plenty of brains.

      • The Grundle King says:

        So what else do you have for sale?

        If you expect Jane to stick to her word on your concessions, you deserve every agonizing moment that will surely come when she betrays you.

  3. repenting lawyer says:

    Sweeper we are talking about federal law so 14th Amendment does not apply, rather headline should beNo Fifth for you.”

  4. repenting lawyer says:

    Sweeper while I am in the professorial mode, 4 to 4 affirmation simply leaves the lower court decision in place. Had a case that upheld POTUS gotten there first programs would still be in place. Opponents won the race to a very friendly DJ and a rather conservative Circuit. Not sure rant at POTUS was justified, and he was preaching to the choir not teaching class or arguing a case.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Hopefully this page doesn’t turn into BTO, Pettigrew, and all the rest of the nuts bashing each other anonymously again. It’s so annoying.

    • anon says:

      Don’t worry, Bud is like a chronic illness. It doesn’t matter what you do to treat it, it’s still lurking under the surface looking for a chance to rise up and irritate you again.

  6. All Aboard says:

    Funny how Jane tossed her supporters under the bus once she got power. Her feigned ignorance shouldn’t fool anybody.

  7. Macdaddy says:

    Does Ashford support the revocation of driver’s licenses if the person is on a No Fly list? He should. How about the selling of knives? Pressure cookers? What about bug spray or gasoline? All of those are things that can and have been used to kill people, multiple people at a time, too. Are they allowed to take martial arts classes? What books are they allowed to check out from the library? Because it’s the 2nd Amendment today, the First Amendment tomorrow for Congressman Ashwipe.

    • Sparkles says:

      I’m firmly of the opinion that – just as our Founding Fathers intended – every American should be able to possess as many muskets, black powder pistols, sabers and tomahawks as they damned well please!

      I would even go so far as to allow the widespread sale and distribution of those fancy multi-shot (6) cap and ball revolvers!
      Federal regulations for migratory waterfowl (ducks, geese) require a ‘plug’ in your shotgun, limiting the number of shells you can load in your gun to three.
      So if you’re limited at any one moment to killing only 3 ducks or geese with your gun, you should reasonably be limited to killing only 6 people at a time with your black powder ball and cap revolver.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Real quick question…which should make for a real quick answer…could you tell me where I can find “muskets, black powder pistols, sabers and tomahawks” in the 2nd Amendment?

  8. bynd says:

    Actually, I’m with Sparkles but going all the way back when only white, male, landowners were able to vote and minorities were, well, not counted at all. Why go part way when you go can go the whole enchilada and really simplify life.

    Go Sparkles, we are with you!!!!

      • The Grundle King says:

        So what? Who do you think they’re going to side with, the rising star or the guy who they recognize as the cantankerous old grump? BTW, that’s not a personal swipe at you…simply pointing out what those ‘witnesses’ likely see as the contrast betweenst the two of you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.