Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, reportedly is acting as if his relinquishing of the job of House majority leader on Sept. 28 was but a dream. He’s still officing in the leadership suite, presiding over private meetings, lobbying members to vote a certain way, and being followed around by three Capitol Hill bodyguards — even when he’s in Texas for court appearances related to his two indictments. Is it dedication or defiance? Either way, somebody needs to start telling DeLay to lay low.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
45 Comments
Why should he lay low? He believe he is innocent.
Although I dislike Delay myself, this Ronnie Earle prosecutor is a character within himself. Scary really.
Chief of staff (Paneta) for King George 1st was on Larry King show saying that anyone in this admin. who is in this kind of predicament ought to step down immediatly for many reasons. I think the best reason is for the good of the entire country. How can the Pres function with all this mess in his lap?If they won’t step down, GW ought to remove them. Common sense.
They seem to be acting like the Catholic Church. Protect the abusers.
Dear Tracy,
Just for fun, here’s a little reality check for you.
What is Delay charged with? With twenty orgasmic stories a day on Delay, can you even summarize the crimes he is charged with?
I seriously doubt it.
I can more than summarize.Enough said, I don’t have time to satisfy your curiosity, sorry maybe another time.
Tracy,
Remember that a gnat is only a tiny annoying insect with a limited view of the world and a similarly limited intent…to annoy the big folks. You did the onlything you could…shoo it away and hope it finds someplace else to go.
esod: money laundering and obstruction of justice.
And please cease and desist your association of the Bugman with orgasm.
Well its obvious that CF doesn’t know. But good on him anyway. Unlike Tracy, he doesn’t allow his ignorance to prevent him from posting!
Dear Brian,
Exactly when did I become a gnat in your eyes? Was it shortly after I shoved your limited understanding of the Bible up your ass?
Keep shooing though, I’ll soon be bored with you and leave.
Esod,
I don’t understand your reasons for posting or the manner in which you post. It’s clear that you are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that someone else might make a valid point or even “shock” you with a point of view that causes you to stop and think. Since that seems to be the case, maybe a discussion forum isn’t what you want or need..maybe a pulpit would be more appropriate.
Also, you cannot seem to resist including cheap and petty personal insults in your posts. Your stuff isn’t even that original, thought provoking or funny..don’t quit your day job.
You might find that people warm to your posts and you if you’d just learn to be a little less condescending and a little more tactful. I appreciate the on topic content of your posts and I think we might even be able to have an interesting discussion. Unfortunately, your mudslingling just leads me and others to do the same. And that hardly qualifies as a good or interesting way to spend a few moments on ay given afternoon.
So, next time you feel the adrenaline pumping, and your penis getting a little stiff as you write some acidic sentence meant to belittle and incite another poster, might Isuggest that you stop, delete it, and let the better angels of your nature take over.
Well, Brian, your asking the wing-nuts to defend the indefensible.
That’s why they fall back on simple denial–”what’d he do wrong? Prove it!” or the ad homenim attack “your simple-minded understanding of the Bible.”
It’s all they got. Kinda sad, isn’t it.
My only regret in life is that he’s not someone else.
Dear Pissant–I mean, esod,
Tom Delay has been indicted on charges of criminal conspiracy and illegal campaign contributions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html
Have a nice day.
Rhonda
Have I missed something? Delay hasnt been convicted of a crime yet has he?
Is he supposed to stop living? (you don’t have to answer that,I think I know the answer).
He really bothers you,doesnt he.
Dear Brian,
I feel that I might have made you uncomfortable. I believe your discomfort lies with your inability to to accept a challenge to your views rather than anything I’ve written. Your irrational reponse is evidence of this conclusion.
For instance in this particualar thread my first post merely asked Tracy what Delay was charged with. Anyone that would like to have an intelligent dialog on this subject at least should begin by understanding the subject.
Tracy, not knowing the answer, declined to respond. Or, knowing the answer declined to follow up on her original post in any meaningful way.
Your first post did exactly what you are accusing me of doing! Ignored the subject and proceded with an ad hominem attack.
Now if you want to discuss the topic in an adult way, I am prepared. If you want to talk about pumping my penis (mines bigger than yours!) and other childish things, well, that might be a topic for a different BLOG.
To summarize, don’t respond to me or about me if you don’t want me to answer you. I don’t care. Just don’t think you can make go away with your childish antics.
Esod,
Thank you for making my point. Under the shroud you go again.
Dear Brian,
Does that mean you don’t want to discuss my penis anymore?
Sure!! why don’t you take it out of your mouth so we can see it.
Fella’ you ain’t been around this blog long enough to know anything about me, so give it up.I might be your daddy or grandpa you idiot.
I notice that you never let an idea interrupt the flow of your posts. You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.
If there’s an idea in your head, it’s in solitary confinement. Are Friday afternoons the times you’ve set aside to humiliate yourself on the Internet?
Oh well, as the late Douglas Adams said: “You live and learn. At any rate, you live.”
Brian
Just have to get in the last word, Don’t ya?
Want to talk about Delay anyone?
No more than you need to.
Tracy,
I’ve been around long enough to know you seldom cotnribute anything meaningful.
you started it
Esod,
So let me ask you…I don’t see that too many people are siding with you..either on this topic or any other one you post on. So I guess your delusions of godhood lead you to believe that you’re being persecuted for the blinding radiance of your logic (uncontrollable chuckles suddenly burst forth).
Could it be…you offend?? Nah, that couldn’t possibly be it !!
Let me see, you try to run me off this post, compare me to a bug, all before I even mention your name or post anything nasty at all, and now I have ‘delusions of godhead’?
Heckler has similar views on the subject, but I didn’t realize we were in a popularity contest.
Does it make you feel superior to have a mental midget like CF on your side? Or that idiot Galahad that has never had anything intelligent to say? Please!
I hope I offend you! Heaven knows I’m trying hard enough! And all it takes is the truth!
Perhaps Heckler does agree with you on topics on which you both post. However, I don’t see Heckler insulting people as a normal part of his posting routine.
However, this is, I’m sure, getting tedious for other not involved in this discussion, if you could call it that. Why don’t you post a hot email link of your own, or better yet we could continue real time on yahoo mesenger.
You can start by answering the question I posed oh so long ago. What are some of the unenumerated rights guaranteed to the citizen?
Dear Brian,
I pretty much answered your post oh so long ago. The 10th amendment gives rights not mentioned back to the states and individuals. That means that the citizens should be able to pass their own laws on abortion and other socially dispicalble actions without interference from the Supreme Court or federal government.
This stemmed from a discussion on original intent. The founding fathers were statesmen, preachers, judges and politicians from individual colonies. Anyone that studies their writings and phylosophy will easily realize they wanted to limit the power of the federal government to the point of being almost impotent.
To answer your question again, the tenth amendment trumps the nineth when it comes to unenumerated rights.
A clever ploy of the left is to call action they want to make legal a “right”. Then they use the activist judiciary to rule ‘fairly’ on the issue. Ignoring the original intent of the constitution.
esod..rights, my man, rights…rights are not supplied to us by law..they are given to man by providence. What are these rights?
Well Brian,
You tell me. I gave it a shot.
‘Mental midget’? Ho hum.
Consider the source: an ignoramus troll who can’t spell ‘philosophy’ and steals rhonda’s mailto address.
Hate yourself much, troll?
Esod,
That’s the point, isn’t it? The framers told us that we have rights beyond those enumerated but they didn’t tell us what they were. That’s where the ’spirit’ of the document comes in. That’s where the right to privacy is found. We all expect to beable to find private places and private moments beyond the reach of others…makes perfect sense.
A more current issue..a person’s genetic fingerprint…do insurance companies, or law enforcement agencies, or your employer have the ‘right’ to your genetic information, revealing your genetic weaknesses and propensities to illness, or is that yours exclusively? When you can direct me to an original document showing me the explicit intent of the framers on this specific issue, then I might believe there is something to original intent. But you can’t. The Constitution is a living framework meant to embody the spirit of what the framers saw as a document protecting man’s inherent rights.
The Declaration says…” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (plural), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (only three listed but more implied). –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Esod,
That’s the point, isn’t it? The framers told us that we have rights beyond those enumerated but they didn’t tell us what they were. That’s where the ’spirit’ of the document comes in. That’s where the right to privacy is found. We all expect to beable to find private places and private moments beyond the reach of others…makes perfect sense.
A more current issue..a person’s genetic fingerprint…do insurance companies, or law enforcement agencies, or your employer have the ‘right’ to your genetic information, revealing your genetic weaknesses and propensities to illness, or is that yours exclusively? When you can direct me to an original document showing me the explicit intent of the framers on this specific issue, then I might believe there is something to original intent. But you can’t. The Constitution is a living framework meant to embody the spirit of what the framers saw as a document protecting man’s inherent rights.
The Declaration says…” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (plural), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (only three listed but more implied). –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
damn website posted the thing twice..sorry.
Well Brian,
I think maybe we can agree on some things but few of them are in your last post. Your definition of rights and the definition the framers used are not the same.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution were the result of a compromise. Many of the framers didn’t want them and a few wanted more. Some were afraid that if you listed some they would eventually be construed as the only ones. These concerns were the basis for the ninth and tenth amendments. You must understand these concerns to understand the bill of rights and the various amendments.
The framers did not intend for the Supreme Court to have the power to change the basic meaning of the constitution. They allowed amendments to be made in case of needed changes. The examples you give for a ‘living framework’ are not sensible in my opinion. You have become the victim of liberal claptrap.
The Supreme Court has made sweeping changes to the interpretation of the Constitution based on the ‘right to privacy’. But where does this right come from? You definitely should have this right, but should you be able to violate laws in private? Roe v Wade hinged on this imaginary right. The Supreme Court took away the states’ right to prohibit abortion. They used the 14th amendment. Which is ludicrous if you have any understanding of the history of the 14th amendment. I don’t care what your position is on abortion. I don’t care if Roe v Wade is over turned or not. There are liberals and conservatives that believe Roe v Wade is poorly decided.
The 10th amendment is simple and easy to understand. Its original intent and purpose is easy to understand. The powers not listed in the Constitution belong to the states. Do I have the right to privacy such that I can abuse and torture my dog? Can I have consensual sex with my six-year-old daughter as long as I do it in private? Does my imaginary right to privacy enable me to grow pot, or make speed for my own use as long as I do it in my basement? Who cares? The framers of the Constitution gave the power to answer these questions to the citizens of the individual sovereign states. They did it with the tenth amendment.
You bring up the question of a person’s genetic fingerprint. Who has the right to your genetic information? It has nothing to do with privacy. Insurance companies should be able to offer me a policy based on the fact that I am not genetically predisposed for certain diseases. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink. I exercise and eat nutritious well-balanced meals in a manner to maintain my weight. Shouldn’t all of these facts be taken into account when I apply for health insurance? It all comes down to the question, “Do people have a right to health insurance?” No, they don’t. And they shouldn’t.
You ask; should law enforcement agencies have a right to your genetic information? Of course they should in certain instances. Every circumstance that allows them to use your fingerprints for identification should apply to your genetic information. Should your employer have the right to your genetic information? If he wants that to be a condition for employment he should have the right. If you want to look elsewhere for a job, rather than allow him to swab your mouth, that should be your right too. Then you say, “When you can direct me to an original document showing me the explicit intent of the framers on this specific issue, then I might believe there is something to original intent.”
I give you the specific document that covers all of these issues as far as the Supreme Court is concerned:
“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.”The tenth amendment. It gives the states and the citizens the authority to decide these issues on their own. Unfortunately, the Congress and the Supreme Court have seemed to have misplaced this particular amendment ever since the Civil War.
Liberals tend to get rights and what is right confused. The enumerated rights the framers mention in the bill of rights put no burden on government or citizens. For instance, my right to free speech in the first amendment does not put a burden on you to listen. It doesn’t compel the government to ensure that I’m heard. My right to keep and bear arms doesn’t compel the government to tax you to buy me a cannon. However, if you think that I have a right to health insurance, who pays? Should we allow the state to provide healthcare to all based on this imaginary right? If you smoke and have unprotected sex in a bathhouse why should the government tax me to pay for the results of your lifestyle?
Once you start to fall for the liberal claptrap that the Constitution is a “living document” that can be interpreted and have the meaning changed by activist judges then you will eventually have anarchy. The court will be able to take away your property rights by ruling on eminent domain cases in a way that allows local governments to confiscate your property and give it to another citizen for no other reason than to raise the tax base. (Oops they just did that!) Or they can pervert the first amendment in such a way that a persons right for free political speech will be twisted into a right to sell pornography. (Oops, they have already done that!) Or they will allow the first amendment to be twisted around so much that we can’t have a nativity scene in a school at Christmas. (Oops they have already done that.)
You quote from the Declaration of Independence, (a document that I have had memorized since the 5th grade) “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”But now because we have liberal, activist judges, they have the power to negate laws instituted by the states’ legislatures for the citizens that elected them because they ignore the original intent of the Constitution.
This is the third time I have answered your question.
Wow I got to this one late.
Um ESOD? You post fairly eloquently for a right wing goon. Congrats on that. Eloquence is not ususally featured among your crowd.
Um Esod? You enter these blogs by attacking respected and long time members here. You may feel free to attack me next, but be warned that this is hardball and the right aint fared to well here. By jumping in with mere attacks you define yourself badly.
The jist of the blog was DeLay. Just today Mr. DeLay was linked to Rep. Abramhof in a travel scandal. Mr Abramhof is also under suspicion. Too, it was revealed that Mr. DeLay was compensated to the tune of 15,000 dollars to return to Washington to speak before a conservative group. The financier for this over paid junket from Texas to D.C.?
FOX NEWS
Long story short, DeLay better hope as Scooter Libbie and Karl Rove do that Bush does not get impeached before he can pardon them, which of course, he will.
As to your take on the constitution esod.
Society evolves, technology evolves, Life evolved. I know that’s a stickler for ‘ya but it is a fact. Heck, even the BIBLE evolved. Times change, then as now.
So also must the constitution evolve. It evolved to treat African Americans as more than 3/5ths of a person. It evolved to include women as elgible voters. It evolved to prohibit drinking. It evolved again to redress the mistake of legislating peronal behavior when prohibition was repealed. It evolved to give those old enough to be sent to die in its defense a right to cast a vote.
Now I’d suspect from your postings ESOD that you want the constitution written in stone. I’ve no doubt you’d “roll back the rock” given your own personal wims so that the Constitution would return America to the province of propertied white males.
I think the whole blog already has a sense of who and what you are esod. Deal is, it is SO EASY to use your own written in stone “sacred” 218 year old document AGAINST you.
The Preamble to the constitution mandates “promote the general welfare” and yet your arguement attacks nationalized health care! Just what do YOU define as the “general welfare”?
I could go on but I got your number esod. You wanna rail about the constitution? Get out after the “patriot act”
You gotta earn your spurs here son. Until then you are just another idealogue with an agenda………likely a self centered one like most conservatives.
Esod,
While you make some interesting points you have missed the big picture. The rights that belong to you belong to everyone else too. When you violate the rights of others you have crossed the line. All of the examples you gave involve the abuse of another’s rights.
You also seem to think that I am of the opinion that rights are inviolable and I am certainly not. The Constitution allows for the suspension of rights under very specific circumstances. For example, no person can “…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So you may be deprived of certain rights but only through due process. So, police agencies may collect DNA or fingerprints or perform a wiretap so long as these activities have been sanctioned through due process. Similarly, my life may also be taken so long as due process has been served.
As far as the violation of the law in privacy, that is a moral question, not a legal one. The state must first PROVE the violation using methods and means that do not violate my inherent rights. Should the state be able to use infrared censors that can peer through the walls of my home to detect heat signatures from my body or from the lights I’m using to grow my marijuana without due process? I think not.
You ask where the unenumerated rights are to be found. They are to be found in the hearts and minds of all citizens. They are neatly summed up in the Golden Rule..”Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you.” I’m sorry if this is not concrete enough for you, but times and morality do evolve, as JR stated. The advance of civilization and culture give rise to rights not previously recognized and sometimes even result in the extinction of others.
As I stated, governments don’t grant rights to the individual. Governments protect the rights that the individual has already been granted by providence. The ultimate purpose of the Supreme Court is to guarantee to us what our rights(as the 9 people supposedly most learned and sensitive at this particular moment in time to the rights of the citizen) and they do this by majority vote, indicating that there will always be dissent.
Oh, with regard to the tenth amendment. It deals with powers not rights.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
(section 8 in part)…
So the tenth amendment deals with these POWERS (and others), not with the inherent rights of the individual, which are, by their very nature, a national concern, not a local one. Your rights in Massachusetts should be the same as those in Alabama.
Let me give you an example found in recent eagle headlines of the state using citizens’ ignorance of the law to violate a citizen’s right that they prove the case against you using legal means and due process.
The Wichita police have been giving out a lot of tickets on Kellogg to speeders in work zones. It’s right to enforce the law and to protect workers out on public roads.
However, I believe the Wichita police use LIDAR almost exclusively for speed determination. LIDAR has not received judicial notice (acceptance as a valid scientific method) in any Kansas court to the best of my knowledge, and it has been ruled inaccurate and unacceptable by courts in a number of states.
It may be true that the people the police catch are speeding, but they are catching them by violating state and federal laws to do it.
Dear JR,
You claimed the Constitution evolved:
“So also must the constitution evolve. It evolved to treat “African Americans as more than 3/5ths of a person. It evolved to include women as elgible voters. It evolved to prohibit drinking. It evolved again to redress the mistake of legislating peronal behavior when prohibition was repealed. It evolved to give those old enough to be sent to die in its defense a right to cast a vote.”
In everyone of your examples the changes were made by amendments! Exactly in accorance with the original intent of the framers! You have made my point! We do not need a “living document” interpreted by liberal activist judges!
You say:
“Now I’d suspect from your postings ESOD that you want the constitution written in stone. I’ve no doubt you’d “roll back the rock” given your own personal wims so that the Constitution would return America to the province of propertied white males.”
Nothing in my post would lead you to suspect any of this. I imagine that your preconcieved notions of anyone that disagrees with you lead you to these conclusions. You would be better served to educate yourself on the subject instead of relying on personal attacks based on assumptions.
when a debate reaches a point the only good response is…
you started it..
than maybe it’s time to take a deep breath and walk away
Brian,
I’m amused that you claim that I miss the big picture but still refuse to understand the reason for the tenth amendment!
You write:
“Oh, with regard to the tenth amendment. It deals with powers not rights.”
Then you pedantically list all of the powers that the Constitution gives to the Congress. A brilliant excercise, but it doesn’t replace logical thought or address the original intent of the framers.
The first ten amendments were called the “Bill of Rights”. Their intent was to ensure individual rights. In order to do this they used the tenth amendment to insure that Congress wouldn’t usurp the powers of the indvidual states. They felt that the tenth amendment was required in the ‘big picture”.
Yes, wasn’t it brilliant..And the 10th amendment deals with the right of the individual or his state to POWERS not explicitly delegated to the federal government or explicitly denied to the state governments. It says NOTHING about RIGHTS. Examples??? Drinking age, driving age and licensure, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
Why were Jim Crowe laws, poll taxes, “separate but equal” facilities, gerrymandering, and so many others found to be unconstitutional? They would seem to be OK by your reasoning. The states passed them and the majority of people of those states approved of them. It’s pretty obvious.
“Bill of Rights” Big picture. Focus.
Call the foundig fathers! I’ve just been winged with a speed gun!