It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

LOL





posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Actually, that would be fitting, if everyone started mailing her copies of the Constitution and her office got inundated.

Maybe some Ron Paul posters as well.




edit on 21-1-2016 by gladtobehere because: added image



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Is funny that a Senator that actually are mostly educated in constitutional laws will try to ignore it in order to pursue an argument and an agenda, doesn't this women knows that you can no debate issue in congress or have hearings about issues without using constitutional laws.

This sounds hilarious actually.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.



Wow the ego on you..





On topic.

This so called senator is only saying what most libs are thinking. If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.

If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.


Would banning people from holding office because they have an opinion be constitutional?

Kind of hypocritical of you, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

www.senate.gov...



This should help.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.



Wow the ego on you..


On topic.

This so called senator is only saying what most libs are thinking. If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.


Yea. When you end your post with stereotyping all liberals negatively like that, I'm going to go ahead and take your opinion of me with a grain of salt. Though I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight with me.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Yes, but having a different interpretation to the NRA of a document written over 200 years ago can hardly be considered as not "upholding" the constitution.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.

If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.


Would banning people from holding office because they have an opinion be constitutional?

Kind of hypocritical of you, don't you think?


We call it "Voting".

and "Impeachment".


edit on Jan-21-2016 by xuenchen because: sorosism



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
According to the Freedom Index, A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S Constitution, Senator Mikulski has a habit of ignoring the U.S. Constitution. The Index rates congress based on their adherence to constitutional principles.
The scores are for key votes from1999 to 2015. This lady's score is only 12%. So she has only taken into account the Constitution 12% of her votes.

I have to ask... why is she still in congress??? Hey Maryland voters what the h*** are you thinking!?!?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
What does she think the Constitution is? The Bible?

You can't just pick and choose things




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
She`s getting pretty old and I dare say probably a bit senile, but fortunately she`s retiring when her term is up this year.


March 2, 2015: sen. Bar­bara Mikul­ski an­nounced plans Monday morn­ing to re­tire from the Sen­ate when her term is up next year.Her term ends in 2016, a pres­id­en­tial year, ...


www.nationaljournal.com...

After this year she`ll no longer be in Washington trying to subvert the constitution she`ll be back in Baltimore sitting on her porch drinking pabst or national boh and watching the riots, good riddance to her.

edit on 21-1-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Actually that 200 year old paper is still the law of the land as it stand today, regardless of opinions.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Senator Barbara Mikulski

One word for this woman, Traitor.

Barbara Mikulski swore an oath to protect the Constitutions. But what is the Constitution, just a piece of paper, right.

I am seeing more and more government representatives ignoring the laws of the land, who are they really working for?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: thesaneone
Yes, but having a different interpretation to the NRA of a document written over 200 years ago can hardly be considered as not "upholding" the constitution.


I would normally agree, but in this case, we're talking about a US Senator. Although a US Senator is still entitled to their personal opinions, in their official duties as Senator, they're bound to uphold the laws as written and as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. They can't just ignore a ruling or a law that they happen to disapprove of.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.

If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.


Would banning people from holding office because they have an opinion be constitutional?

Kind of hypocritical of you, don't you think?


We call it "Voting".

and "Impeachment".



Well, exactly... that's kind of my whole point.

As opposed to advocating to ban people from running for office, who simply expressed an opinion that you disagree with.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.

If you don't stand by the constitution then you should not be allowed to hold any office.


Would banning people from holding office because they have an opinion be constitutional?

Kind of hypocritical of you, don't you think?


We call it "Voting".

and "Impeachment".



Well, exactly... that's kind of my whole point.

As opposed to advocating to ban people from running for office, who simply expressed an opinion that you disagree with.


Banning people from office who refuse to uphold the Constitution sounds pretty fair to me.

It's not "free speech" when you have someone in leadership who wants to eliminate rights.

(it's called a ruling class mentality)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Defending people who want to destroy something that they swore an oath to protect is strange.

It's like defending a soldier who turns traitor.

The soldier took an oath. He/she has a job they get paid to do.

If they fail in that job, if they deliberately abuse that position, if they turn traitor, they are punished.

Why aren't politicians treated the same?


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I love how people say, "I know nothing about this, but I am sure it was taken out of context." LOL
(sub-text: unless it was a republican, then it was probably accurate)

This is not about guns, the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturer profits, or how old the Constitution is. To marginalize it that way is deleterious to the cause of maintaining respect for and adhering to the Constitution.

Our elected officials should not only know and follow the tenets of the Constitution, they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the common man, whom they are sworn to represent in regards to Constitution and the law of the land. When those sworn to uphold the Constitution become the greatest threat to it, change is no longer an option but a necessity.

I understand that some people with a political agenda leaning to the liberal side will not see this as particularly wrong or threatening. What frightens me is that so many of these same people are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are not immune to these infringements on Constitutional right. Anyone who believes that these infringements will only happen to one party or affiliation is in for a rude awakening.

If you value your own rights, then fight for everyone's rights. In doing so, you defend your own as well.
edit on 21-1-2016 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
What if a five star General said to his staff, I don't want to hear about this Commander in Chief thing, we go to war!

Same thing.




top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join