Skip to comments.Lying about the law? How can you tell?
Posted on 04/29/2013 2:00:04 PM PDT by neverdem
When the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Manchin/Toomey background check amendment in April of this year, President Obama complained that opponents were lying about the gun control bill. The bill and the amendment were written in what amounts to a legal foreign language...
The list of failures is a long one. House and Senate rules direct that committee reports accompanying bills describe in detail how the bill changes existing law. Except S. 649 came to the Senate floor without a committee report, as is often the case with controversial bills most in need of explanation.
The cryptic language referring to striking this or that in the NCIS Amendments Act is a bill-drafting style used by Congress and abandoned long ago by most state legislatures. That drafting style is called "amendment by reference," or "cut and bite." On its own, it is unintelligible, which is why state legislatures write bills showing enough of existing law to put the proposed changes in context. State legislatures adopted the radical idea that a bill should be readable and understandable without the need for outside reference.
S. 649 amended or referred to the NCIS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007; the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994; the Immigration and Nationality Act; the Arms Export Control Act; the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act; the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act; the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Most of federal law is found scattered in hundreds and hundreds of previously passed individual statutes, which have in turn have been previously amended. This is the maze through which Congress wanders as it is writing new law, all the while making the labyrinth...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Our government has become a sick joke.
So, basically these things are written by unknown, unseen career bureaucrats with an agenda. And the people they work for are dumber than dirt and/or do not care, as long as it makes the look good to somebody.
This is that whole “passing it to see what’s in it” crap that has turner our government into a mockery.
When your government no longer respects the laws it passes, how much respect should you have for the government?
They are “under the gun” to pass gun control legislation and confiscate your guns before they crash the economy. The crash of the rest of the world, the third world EU in particular, is on hold until they can do something about the guns in the US. The stupid Northeast and West coast are in the bag already, but it’s those stubborn independent conservative states that they are afraid of.
For Democrats...their lips are moving!!!
If I were in Washington, I would write a law stating simply this:
The Constitution of The United States is hereby restored. All previous laws, ordinances, rules, departments and bureaus are removed permanently. This will go into effect immediately after signed by the sitting President (Whoever it might be at the time). Any future infringements made against the constitution by any elected official or anyone within our borders will be removed from office, arrested, and charged with treason.
Pennsylvania is in the Northeast BUT armed to the teeth with some pretty heavy stuff.
Perhaps, Sir, in your wisdom you could explain to me the difference between lawful and legal, and where those differences come from in our society?
I do agree to your premise; see tagline.
I’ve been drinking, and I had to actually look that up:
I admit my ignorance on that subject.
I’m just so disgusted because my governor signed the illegal immigrant (democrat voter) tuition law today.
You'd lose those cases: the Constitution clearly defines Treason, and unless you can show that these acts are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the states, they'll be innocent according to the Constitution.
To my mind, lawful is related to natural or common law, whereas legal is pertaining to statutory laws. Many things are done that are perfectly legal, but unlawful, and there are many things that are lawful now ascribed as illegal. Quite a mess we make in trying to codify life!