Political Humor

I have been giving much thought to our new president. The more he talks, and the more of himself he reveals, the more I think I can get on the Obama bandwagon.

When you’re in my line of work, you see things differently. Being exposed to so many different types of people in so many different situations opens your mind to different points of view. This open mindedness has caused me to arrive at a new conclusion.

Yes, I still believe President Obama is a communist. I still believe President Obama is trying to subvert the Constitution. I still believe President Obama is a totalitarian. It just seems my job has caused me to see the light.

Are you confused? You shouldn’t be. What better place to be the police than in a police state?

Think about it. You know you want me to have no constitutional restrictions to protect the criminals of this world. The next time I think I have a car thief holed up in a house based on third hand information, I won’t have to stand down because I don’t have a warrant. BAM! I kick in the door and, voila, one less criminal on the streets. What could possibly go wrong?

Have you ever called the police, only to be told there was nothing they could do because it was just your word against the other person’s? No more of that. Everybody will be satisfied with law enforcement response! Your neighbor threatened you? Well, it’s time for a smackdown!

You shouldn’t be worried that your neighbor will make false allegations against you. You’re innocent; you have nothing to worry about. This will be a brave new crime-free world!

Yes, I, for one, welcome our new totalitarian overlords. Since I’ll be the police, you have nothing to worry about. I will protect you. Good thing, too. What, with the President getting ready ban miscellaneous semi-automatic weapons, and shotguns with telescoping stocks, you’re going to need me.

If you want more JumpOut, he will be busy practicing violating your soon to be non-existent constitutional rights at his law enforcement humor blog, You Should be Tasered

One thing that really irritates me is when people justify judicial activism by stating that the Constitution is over 200 years old, its authors did not have the foresight to know what changes in technology and society would bring.

If you think that the Constitution doesn’t account for the way you think something should be, you don’t disregard what the Constitution says, and have a judge rule in favor of your position.

Our Founding Fathers may not have had the foresight to know what kind of place America would be in the 21st Century, but they did have the foresight to include a process for making changes, and it wasn’t by judicial fiat.

There is a democratic method for making changes, and that process is outlined in the Constitution itself. There is an amendment process for making changes to update aspects to reflect changes in society, or technology or whatever.

For example, slavery was allowed at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution (and wrongly so). How was slavery abolished? Did the Supreme Court determine that some part of the Constitution gave them equal protection? No, it was changed by passing an amendment to the Constitution.

When the Constitution was written, and ratified, women did not have the right to vote (and wrongly so). How did women get the right to vote? Did a judge decide that women should have the right to vote, and cite the laws of another nation as a precedent? No. An amendment to the Constitution was passed.

If you want abortion to be legal, or illegal, as a law of the land, rather than a state by state issue, then pass an amendment, or try anyway. That’s the way our system is constructed.

If you want to overturn the right to bear arms, you need an amendment. You don’t declare the 2nd Amendment archaic and outdated. Try to get an amendment repealing it.

If you want a completely secular government, you need an amendment. You don’t try to find something that’s not there to support your position. Try to get an amendment changing it.

I see no point to debating issues in terms of their Constitutionality, when what you are really debating are your views on them. Go ahead and debate your views, but don’t try to twist the Constitution to fit your ideals. Try to change the Constitution to fit your ideals, and debate those ideals to persuade others to support such an amendment.

You do this with an amendment (and your powers of persuasion), not by ignoring the Constitution, or declaring it outdated and irrelevant.

You may now attempt to persuade me that I’m not always right.

Return to the Political Humor Home Page