Friday, December 5, 2008

Christmas in the People's Democratic State of Maryland

Classic. Montgomery County shuts down a Christmas Tree operation run by a church because it violates a law saying Christmas Tree sales cannot begin before 5 December. No one in power seems to know why the law was passed in the first place. Gotta love the nanny state.


Anonymous said...

In the spirit of neighboring DC where all sorts of laws are being bent or changed for the upcoming celebration of the coronation of our nation's first foreign born president, perhaps these trees could be called "Obama Bushes" and the authorites can let it slide.

The Conservative Wahoo said...

You know, I keep reading about this "foreign born" stuff, and I am remain unconvinced. Folks on the right are beginning to resemble the crazed conspiracy theorists who tried to pin Vince Foster's suicide on the Clintons.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Wahoo, all of the suits regarding O's citizenship have been brought by Democrats. The most prominent one is from a Philadelphia attorney who once was head of the Montgomery County Democratic Party. So don't hang this one on the 'crazed right.'
Nothing will come of it, but take a look into it, because there's enough in there to make you scratch your head.

Mudge said...

And to anon, your proposal about "obama bushes" passing muster in montgomery county will never fly. montgomery county residents are incapable of using the word "bush" without simultaneously emitting this brain piercing whine reminiscent of those Earth First! nut cases weeping over some tree.

The Conservative Wahoo said...

Sally--I am metaphysically certain that the comment here came from a member of the "nearly crazed right".

Ace said...

CW, I wish I was in touch with metaphysical certainty. That's pretty cool!

I seek your insight on an issue of Constitutional enmity. You and I briefly discussed the other Constitutional issue (Senators taking cabinet appointments and the "emoluments clause") looming over the next administration; this joins nicely with your "foreign born" observation and the idea of changing laws in deference.

Regardless of the outcome of these and other questions, I see a larger issue associated with the oath many of us took upon entering government service. The oath vows support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, of which we are all familiar.

So the certainty I seek is on this question: what is the standard of conscience or the legal test of enmity with the Constitution? I suspect the definition of a foreign enemy is relatively simple, but what of a domestic enemy? What must one do to qualify as a domestic enemy of the Constitution?

*** In the interest of full disclosure, this question is offered by a 20-year registered Democratic Party member.

The Conservative Wahoo said...

Ace--I cannot hope to achieve metaphysical certainty with this question. I can only blindly stab.

To qualify as a domestic enemy of the Constitution, one must actively seek to subvert the duly constituted proceedings or authorities of one of the three branches of government.

How's that? Need more?

Ace said...

It is helpful, but I'd like to draw this into slightly better relief. So what is the relationship between the oath taker and a domestic enemy of the Constitution? In other words, what is the duty of one who has sworn this oath?

I'm not trying to instigate a riot, and I'm not not trying to instigate a riot... I just wish to be a bit more clear on these duties... all the more so as the controversy swirls, people talk, and ask opinions.

I a interested in the "originalist" view the funders might have had, but few scholars give this much treatment. Does that indicate it is a non-issue, or is a vulnerability?

Newer Post Older Post Home