The Supreme Court is beginning to hear a case about the Second Amendment (they are looking at the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban), and I had an idea for another check and balance against the Supreme Court which sometimes seems like it has too much power. If the Supreme Court makes a decision the other branches don’t like, it should be constitutional for members of the Legislative and Executive branches to wait by the Justices’ cars so they can jump them when they exit the court. That way, Supreme Court Justices can make radical decisions if they want but they’ll know they may have the crap kicked out of them for it.
You may notice a lot of my suggestions for politics is to add more violence to it, but that’s just because there’s so little in it right now and that’s stupid. I wish it legally allowed to beat up a legislator for that oversight.
Ain’t a lesson can’t be learned by a good ’nuff whoopin’
Have you read “Lone Star Planet” by H. Beam Piper? It directly supports the idea of mixing violence in politics. It usually comes in a single book with “Four Day Planet,” also a great read.
When Texas secedes, we should get Michael Z. Williamson and H. Beam Piper (who already has street cred with the name H-Beam) to write the new constitution.
Yes, Piper has been dead for 43 years, but the Founding Fathers have been dead a lot longer than that, and they were able to write the US constitution.
Here’s the book – http://qurl.com/q6wsc
This is a great idea. We could call it the Fred Thompson Amendment.
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled years ago that it is the final decision making body – virtually placing itself above the other “separate but equal” bodies of our political system. And, since the dems have controlled the House and Senate for most of the years since (and the Supreme Court has been doing their bidding) it has not been challenged. However, these days the body that’s supposed to interpret the Constitution is basically unConstitutional.
You see Frank, thats the kind of brilliant idea we’ve come to expect at IMAO.
What do you think of an amendment to allow cruel or unusual punishment? Judges should make the criminal suffer or make America laugh (bonus points if they can do both).
I agree that we don’t have nearly enough violence in politics anymore. My memory (and Google) are failing me at the moment; who were the two congressmen that got in a fight on the Capitol steps in the lead-up to the Civil War? One of them whupped the other with a cane…now that’s politics.
Violence is cool because if it’s violent enough, it’ll solve whatever problem is before us. Plus, hippies abhor violence so we can take their money and they won’t even fight back.
I grew up in Wyoming and, to steal from Matt Groening, it’s “The Violentest Place on Earth” with almost no crime at all. The problem is that many people (liberals, mostly) can’t tell the difference between crime and violence.
Your idea has precedent.
http://historyofideas.org/journals/EH/EH41/Neff41.html
“On the morning of February 15, 1798, pandemonium broke out on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Without warning, Federalist Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut strode across the chambers to where his colleague Matthew Lyon was sitting preoccupied with some correspondence. Cursing him as a “scoundrel,” Griswold pounded the Vermont Republican’s head and shoulders with a thick, hickory walking stick.”
Not sure if that’s the same incident Joseph is talking about, because I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the one involving Henry Clay.
Last 2 comments were me…sorry. Not Henry Clay. He died before the Civil War.
From Wiki:
“In Congress arguments over slavery became violent when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner’s “Crime against Kansas” speech.”
So…there are two specific incidents of violence in Congress on record, meaning Frank’s idea not only has precedent, but that it is the American way. It should be done.
However, his idea should only hold true if Marines are allowed to do it as well. That way, John Murtha can get his when he’s headed out to his car.
You mean it’s illegal to punch Congressmen?
Oops.
Test
Anyone else having problems with hyperlinks on here?
Also, violence in politics would be friggin awesome.
The best thing about fights on the House or Senate floor… C-Span.
echo5a – did you post a hyperlink? It didn’t come through. If your c-span comment was a link to congresscritters hitting each other, I want to see it.
I’d have like to see Dubya fight John Kerry 4 years ago. Dubya woulda beat him to a pulp that friggin coward. Now we don’t want McCain to fight he can barely move his arms from torture, but it’d be funny to see him pull out an old 6 shooter and take out Obama lol. Our presidency should be decided by the 3 step and then shoot method. What do you say??
Umm, anyone ever heard of ‘The Art of War’? Sun Tzu pretty much says everything that could be said about using violence to impose your will on the enemy.
As secondary support, ‘On War’ by Carl Von Clauswitz is very good and still used as the basis for tactics in America’s military institutes.
I don’t see why we should limit the beatings to SCOTUS. I believe that bitch-slapping Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi would get a few points across to them and the rest of this current congress.
Also, it should be a constitutional mandate that any elected official who shames his office & family with one scandal or another automatically loses his position to the best candidate from the opposite party. I nominate Fred Thompson to be that candidate in all cases, because he’s neither RINO nor Dem, and I think that in the NY Governor’s case (client #9), Elliot Spitzer’s wife could use a real man in her life for once.
FINALLY!!!!!
See – this is why I love politics. Solving problems like this is why al gore invented this internet. Hey, we should be allowed to reach back and pimp slap gore too! make those jowls shake a little.
I dunno about obama though – skinny guys fight til they’re pulp.
This would solve most threats of filibusters. Who is willing to get kicked in the gonads to save funding for PBS? This would also save long deliberation in the Supreme Court. Maybe Ginsburg would keep most of her loony ACLU rhetoric to herself if it meant an ass beating by Alito and Thomas.(How cool would that be if they wore Mexican wrestling masks while doing it!!!)
The person who said violence never solved anything just wasn’t trying hard enough.
That just solidifies the case for Chuck Norris for Supreme Court. He would make good conservative judgments and decisions and would be able to beat the crap out of Chuck Rangel and Carl Levin when they try to go kung fu on him in the parking lot.
Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light not because he’s afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.
#21 – Posted by: Cosmo on March 18, 2008 04:59 PM
Umm, Chuck Norris a conservative? Then why did he support Mike Huckabee?
How many of The Nine do you suppose strap on a pistol (either themselves, or by proxy on a bodyguard) when walking to their cars? I’ll take a serious bet that the answer lies somewhere between Eight and Ten.
I’m all for the reintroduction of unfettered violence into the current political dialogue. Imagine the vast cut back on libel and slander between colleague of opposing parties if the other member ran the very real risk of having a cap busted in they ass. The Presidential debate ratings would take off like a shot as well. I’d love to see Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Ginsberg and pretty much every goddamned Libtard on the Hill get their clock cleaned for the crap they seem to believe they are entitled to say.
Freedom comes with responsibility. And Freedom of Speech comes with the responsibility of accepting it’ your fault you got cold-cocked.
Call me crazy but in a world of terrible candidates Huckabee is a better choice. I don’t know how McCain got in there but he did oh well…Better than Billary or Obamanation lol.
This is a great idea, but if it falls through I’d settle for Scalia whacking Ginsberg with a croquet mallet.
First, if you’re still reading comments at this point, thank you.
Second, does it have to be the Congress/Legislature that does the beatings? Can’t it be just a few of us who heppen to be in D.C. on vacation? I mean, it is, “Of the people, by the people, yada, yada, yada.”
VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER!
But then again, we weren’t the whiny leftards asking the stupid questions; we already knew the answers. So truly, violence should always be the answer… maybe then they’ll stop acting like a bunch of spoiled teenagers.
I actually watched (it was really just audio though) some of today’s arguments before the supreme court on C-SPAN tonight. It was actually kind of interesting. I was very impressed by the justices and the lawyers talking, but at the same time, it also made me want to kill all lawyers everywhere for being such pricks.
Oh, and I’m all for violence in politics, too. I think the only people opposed to violence are the pansies who are too scared to fight in the first place. Bunch of cowards.
I think the only people opposed to violence are the pansies who are too scared to fight in the first place.
That’s why the term “Dhimmicrat” was coined.
echo5a – did you post a hyperlink? It didn’t come through. If your c-span comment was a link to congresscritters hitting each other, I want to see it.
#15 – Posted by: xaetognath on March 18, 2008 03:21 PM
No link. Just a thought. I haven’t figured out how to link to the visuals I get in my head. Imagine if you will Cynthia McKinney and Granny Nancy mixing it up. Classic black vs. white struggle coupled with bitch slaps and hair pulling.
Semper Fidelis
Fred!
Hildebeast.
Cage match.
‘Nuff said.
I saw a picture of Nancy Peloshi and something about Liberal women makes me shake profusely and almost cringe. Is that just me?