Posts

Grayson is back!!!

Even though he was defeated in his bid for re-election to Congress last November, yesterday, Alan Grayson “threw his hat in the ring” for the November, 2012 election. Read more

Outgoing Rep. Grayson: We were not progressive enough

The whack-job used the word ‘appeasement” concerning Democrat’s willing to buckle to the pressure of the almighty Republicans in Congress. That’s just friggin’ hilarious since the Executive Branch and Congress was willing to bypass normal rules to mandate what they could during the past two years.

Read more

What will Grayson do next?

By now you are probably familiar with Representative Alan Grayson (D. Fl.).   He is the person who, among other oddities, and, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, continues to proclaim that 45,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance.  And the same fellow that filed a complaint with the Attorney General demanding fines and jail time for a central Florida woman who started a web site entitled “my congressman is nuts“.  Grayson’s web site is “congressman with guts.”

It seems that now, he has taken it upon himself to introduce not one, not two, but six different bills in the House seeking to overturn last Thursday’s  decision by the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  That was the case that held that a federal law prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds for campaign contributions was an unconstitutional denial of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.  According to Grayson, that decision is,

a direct threat to our democracy.

Funny, in all my years as an attorney, I’ve never heard another attorney refer to freedom of speech as a threat to democracy.  Personally, I always thought that the absence of free speech was the threat.

Grayson has given the catchy title “Businesses Should Mind Their own Business Act” to one of the six.

That bill would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees or any expenditures on political-advocacy campaigns. [emphasis supplied]

Of course, unions would be exempt.

Another bill would prohibit companies that make political contributions from trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and a third would prohibit corporations that receive federal money from donating to any political cause.  The other three are even more bizarre.

I know Grayson’s bio says he is a law school graduate, but I’m wondering if maybe he was out sick when the First Amendment was discussed.  Or, when it was explained that Congress can’t overrule a Supreme Court decision that was based upon the Constitution, only an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

Grayson vs. “my congressman is nuts”

Everyone in the country knows of freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). He called a lobbyist “a K Street whore”, and who proclaimed Dick Chaney should STFU. Grayson also continues to tell us “45,000 people die each year” because they lack insurance, despite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Read more

Grayson on Cheney: Watching blood drip from his teeth

This clown has taken the Democrat party to an all time low. The only outlet out there that will give him a forum is MSNBC. More embarrassing is the fact that Matthews lets it slide right by. Remind me again which isn’t really a news organization.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_7WwIo8eF4

These two idiots couldn’t run one car funeral much less a war. Not included here is Matthews tirade later against Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann for being uncivil … and later hammering Wall Street executives … asking Pat Bucahanan “What do these guys actually do for their money? A question we could very well ask of Matthews.

Due process and equal protection?

Unlike my brother, I am not one to rant.  Occasionally, however, someone in Congress says something that is so stupidly outrageous (or outrageously stupid), that my normal mild mannered demeanor is forced to rant.  So, please forgive me, I’m not used to this.

Congressman Grayson, sadly from my home state – though luckily not from my district – recently proposed legislation that would allow Treasury Secretary Geithner to set the salaries of all who work for any company receiving TARP money.  Forgetting  for the moment that this “law” would create a marvelous bureaucracy of folks who, among their many tasks, would be able to decide what the teller at your local bank should earn, I think it appropriate to dig a bit deeper.

When asked how such a law could be constitutional, the congressman, on national television, pointed to the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Of course, he didn’t mention the 14th Amendment, he only said “due process and equal protection”.  Either he is dumber than a rock, or he firmly believes Americans are dumber than a rock.

The 14th Amendment provides, in pertinent part, (as we lawyers would say) that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  And, yes, that Amendment also provides that Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  Amendment 14 was passed to insure that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, actually had some “teeth”.

On to my rant.  How anyone with more than a fourth grade education could hope to say that the above words from the 14th Amendment  mean that Congress can pass a law allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to decide the salaries of anyone who works for a company accepting TARP money is more than bewildering.  No, it’s demeaning.

Brave young men and women died to fulfill Lincoln’s dream that  the phrase “all men are created equal” actually meant that.  Thus the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Apparently our “good “congressman cares little of that  if  he can fool the public with the feels good phrase “due process and equal protection” .

Shame on him.

Certainly, the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been applied to situations other than making sure that all Americans, regardless of their color, have the same rights.  But no case that I know of has held that that Amendment allows the Executive branch of our government to decide who should earn what.

And first they came for…

I am more than happy to discuss the “due process and equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment with the “good”congressman at his convenience.  Think he’ll take me up on that?

Another Cavuto Moment – Regulate Pay

Cavuto is one of a kind. Now this is how you hold a politicians feet to the fire. Go get em tiger! Read more