4 ms·
I see we are reaching new heights of sophistry in our disregard for the Constitution. It's clearly not an response to an "imminent Danger that will not admit of
by marcoperaza 9y ago
I see we are reaching new heights of sophistry in our disregard for the Constitution. It's clearly not an response to an "imminent Danger that will not admit of delay" if the agreement in question takes no urgent and effective action. Or if the danger in question is something on the scale of decades away, where action starting today is just about as effective (or ineffective) as action starting a year or two years from now.
- nerdponx 9y agoPeople have been making constitutional arguments like this for a long time. It's not new.
- gasbag 9y agoCommerce that remains internal to a state also shouldn't be regulated by the interstate commerce clause, yet that's been done for almost a century. There are no new heights of sophistry here, US history is littered with examples of convoluted logic to find constitutional grounds for whatever those in (various levels of) power want to do.