Last night, Clint Didier was the US Senate candidate vetted by the We The People group at Harney Elementary.
There is no question that he is an imposing man. That said, I'm long since sick of his constant use of football as a campaign prop: That he played the game "and caught a touchdown pass in 22" in no way qualifies him to be a senator or, for that matter, to hold any other political office where knowledge of the issues, a grasp of the Constitution and a specific plan to make a difference is required.
While there was no mention of his apparently massive gun collection, where he has boasted that "if the ATF knew how many guns I had they'd raid my farm," he constantly hammered home themes about the Constitution, claiming at one point, that he wouldn't ever vote for a bill that didn't comply with that document (waving his omnipresent copy around... which is a good idea under most circumstances)... shortly before he pledged to violate the Constitution with legislation he, personally, would introduce.
The Constitution isn't necessarily what we would "like" it to be. It is precisely what it is. And we can't shove it aside for the moment or because we feel like we should.
Didier claimed that, during the 4 hour drive to Harney, he had once again read that document. Apparently, Article One, Section Nine escaped his attention:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.I wanted it in context, so I included the entire section. At issue is the bold faced line: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
While being questioned after he made his opening remarks, the subject of Senatorial retirement and health care came up.
Didier said that not only would he refuse such perks, limiting them to whatever "the people" received, he said that he would introduce legislation to strip past retirements and perks from those already receiving them, presumably in Congress.
He can't do that. And it troubles me to think he believes he can.
An "ex post facto law" is typically defined as a "retroactive law."
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, isOn the whole, this is a relatively minor issue. There is no question that Didier is passionate about the Constitution, as we all should be.
a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
But the Constitution is clear: In the event Didier is elected, politics aside, he cannot do what he claims he will do.
It's not that we wouldn't LIKE to see fat retirements and benefit packages revisited; but that revisiting can only take place for future officials.
We cannot, as Didier apparently did, give in to the emotion of the moment, the anger of the moment, and shove the Constitution aside for a sound bite or to score political points.
Calm, cool, deliberate reflection is what's called for here. And all this is in addition to what will ultimately become Didier's biggest problem: his simultaneous condemnation and receipt of over a quarter of a million dollars in those same subsidies.
Like Blumenthal's claim to Vietnam veteran status will ultimately sink him, Didier's drum beat of condemning subsidies while taking them at the same time will ultimately cost him.
.
2 comments:
In context, ex post facto is used to mean a law being retroactively applied to [prohibit] a circumstance which was legal at the time. The prohibition of ex post facto laws is not to prohibit development in law altogether.
I wasn't there. But I suspect Mr Didier would only change the future consequence of election to COngress, so power and privilege of Congress would be equal to the citizens they represent. Such equality before the law is normal application of law.
I was there; both his language and intent were quite clear.
Nothing that I wrote would indicate that it DOES "prohibit law altogether."
He plainly and clearly indicated that he would legislate to end the retirements and benefits of those already receiving them. Nothing was said or intimated about "future consequence of election" or future anything else.
There was no qualifier like that you would indicate; the plain meaning of his words was indisputable, as the video the WTP will put up soon will indicate.
Had his words indicated a desire to legislate FUTURE action, we wouldn't be discussing this aspect of his presentation.
Thank you for stopping by.
Post a Comment