The "Hue & Cry" of Constitutional Versus Unconstitutional

A reader of mine left a comment that caused me to pause for a moment. Said reader's comment was about the reader claiming to not "get all this hue and cry about stuff being "unconstitutional." Allow me to explain the exceptionally important distinction in both its moral sense and more importantly, its legal sense.

The "constitutionality" of something is of the most dire importance to every law passed in this nation. It is equally important and vital to every wished for law and proposal in this nation as well. Here's why: If group A wants something that is not constitutional, can they have it? NO, they cannot. Why? Group A members think it's important and needed for whatever reason, so if they want it they deserve to have it, right? NOPE! That IS NOT how the system is constituted to operate. Again, we must operate things as designed.

The Constitution is a machine after a fashion. For it to serve its purpose it must be employed as it was designed to. If we tried to drive a car without a steering wheel, how would that work exactly? Do we build houses according to a planned design? Do you want you washer built by workers who decided their way, ignoring the schematic, is better? See my point? You'd be angry and feel yourself abused if the washer you bought was built by jack legs who ignored the PLAN!

So it is with the Constitution and this nation. We are designed to be operated by the schematic - the CONSTITUTION! That is reason number one why the designer's plan should be followed. For the machine to operate as designed it must be run according to the directions. This is so basic a concept I find it appalling that anyone doesn't see it, whatever it is they wish completely aside.

The second reason it's so important a point is because of the anarchy that would result in people deciding on their own what is Constitutional or not. What one wishes for and what one can legally do are not the same thing. Should we each have the ability to ignore whatever law suited us at a particular moment in time? Can reader's see what a clusterf%#* that would be?

An item's constitutionality is very important. Would those like my commentator find it good if everyone took "all this hue and cry about stuff being "unconstitutional," as the commentator does and especially if my exercise of what I felt were okay conflicted with what they wanted? Is it okay if I blow through traffic lights cause I am in a hurry? EVERYONE would say no, of course not, but then when it comes to ideological wishes the same ones who feel abused at my running red lights demands that what they wish for is okay, the LAW BE DAMNED! See my point?

Just because some think Obamacare is a great idea does not make its provisions Constitutional, thus LEGAL! Just because one thinks global warming is real is not sufficient for national sovereignty to be ignored in favor of global governing bodies to combat the imagined warming that science is finally admitting was a hoax to begin with. The Constitution is supreme law of this land. No other law can supersede it. It's not up to the global warming crowd to demand whatever it is they whine about. Sorry. Oh they can whine til they pass the Hell out for all I care, but if it goes against the Constitution, GET OVER IT!

On the other hand, if 2/3rds of the nation feel something is so important we must have it, then the Constitution can be successfully amended and it then becomes Constitutional, and regardless of my personal feelings, law is law, and I am forced to abide by it. NOT rocket science! Where our problem is found is in the sentiment of my commentator, who because they wish for "X" they think any discussion of "constitutionality" is "hue and cry." It is not! It is the most important discussion we can ever have. The law is not the law only when it suits us.

If I am wrong and law is to be followed when it suits one and not when it doesn't, I'm okay with it. That being said, I can damn sure guarantee there would be some major screaming going on, and by the very ones who feel as my commentator does, cause if I am able to cherry pick the laws I will obey, there will be a world of hurt coming for many.

See, I know best, cause, after all, I demand it, right? Is that how we're gonna roll? Fine by me. I promise I won't whine one bit when things don't go my way. Of course that won't happen to often because I am more than capable of making people do what I want and if they don't and law is mine to cherry pick, I am able to deal with those that get in my way. And unlike the mouthy crowd, I will do it. I have ZERO compunctions against playing by the rules I am given.

I am not overly burdened with squeamishness. If we can all do whatever the Hell suits us cause law is ours to obey or not, one big boatload better batten down the hatches and keep a keen out out for me cause if we conflict, you lose. I will give you what you want, but I think mostly it's a whining petulance cause I do not know anyone that thinks me unfettered and unbound by law is a good idea, but you know best, right? Careful what ya wish for. It's your mouth writing a check your ass can't cash. You'll be sorry. . . .

NOW, is it clear what all the "hue and cry" is about. Oh, and for the whiners and you know who you are, my last few paragraphs were for the point of demonstration. But it does well demonstrate my point, no? Now go get your asses off your shoulders. Jeez! Whiners!