VoV thoughts on Schumer

| March 10, 2020


Senate Minority Leader Charles Ellis Schumer (D-NY)

Welcome Veritas Omnia Vincit back, TAH’ers. He’s taken the time to dig into Senator Schumer’s recent unfortunate remarks on the steps of the Supreme Court building, seemingly threatening Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on their potential decisions on a Louisiana law concerning abortions (discussed here- Dems Go Full Retard At Supreme Court). There has been considerable backlash, from Chief Justice Roberts, various Republican politicians and even a couple Democrat legal experts. but was Schumer within his Constitutional Rights to make those remarks?

In Defense of Chuck Schumer (well, sort of)

Veritas Omnia Vincit

Much has been made of Senator Schumer’s ill advised comments regarding Kavanaugh and Gorsuch recently. Some have even proposed a motion to censure Senator Schumer. In conjunction with this, sometime last week a discussion was had here at This Ain’g Hell where in the comments a point was made about infringing our rights and our fellow Americans regular acceptance of that these days. Consequently it seemed a good moment to revisit some of my thoughts on what the law is and what the intent of the founders might have been based on their writings when it comes to things like where should the law be drawn around conduct and speech.

With respect to Senator Schumer’s first amendment right to be as big a buffoon as he likes when speaking the founders were pretty clear on this topic.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What’s interesting about shall make no law is how many people think the founders actually meant, “make a few laws”. We know this to be true because we keep hearing our fellow citizens talking about limiting speech, after all what benefit to society is there of that dreaded “hate” speech? What benefit to society comes from hearing hateful words spoken by hateful people who want hateful things to happen to other Americans? So they say we should not allow such things, usually followed by the favorite of such people, “after all you can’t yell fire in a theater!”…. as if that were the definitive argument. Most people don’t actually know the legal case that created that comment in the first place. Not only do they not know that case they don’t know that a year later the Justice who coined that phrase reversed himself on a separate case, nor do they know that case’s entire “clear and present danger” premise allowing the law to limit speech was changed 50 years later to one of imminent unlawful action incited by said speech. For simplicity’s sake, what does all that mean really? Your view may be different but mine is rather simple, it means that our vaunted Supreme Court can and often does change its understanding of the premise of each and every amendment to suit the political aims of the government that appointed it at the time. In the case of the fire comment America had entered WW1 and Congress passed a law that said no one can interfere with the military or recruitment for the military in time of war. Two socialists had written a pamphlet suggesting that conscription violated the 13th amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude and suggested that the public disobey the draft but advised everyone to be peaceful in their disobedience. The two were arrested and charged with violating that Espionage act by interfering with the draft/recruitment of the military. Interestingly enough Oliver Holmes a year later would reverse himself in the Abrams case, claiming the government was not able to show an actual clear and present danger when two other socialists produced leaflets denouncing the war, calling for a strike in ammunition plants, advocating a cessation of weapons production to be used against Soviet Russia. In the first case the defendants were sentenced to 6 months in prison while in Abrams they were sentenced to 20 years. So clearly even Holmes had an issue with his thoughts on the matter and after consideration had decided perhaps the government’s limits on speech were not nearly as obvious as he had first explained a year earlier.

If nothing else those three cases should illustrate something that most Americans should find uncomfortable. That our thought about being a nation of laws as if the law itself were an immutable absolute is an abstract thought not born out in the reality of our nation’s use of the law not as a protector of the general welfare, but as a mechanism of control to stifle dissent during unpopular actions by our government. We tell ourselves these comfortable lies about what the law is because if we actually considered the state of law in the United States today against the actual words of the founders we the people might finally be righteously angered and take action to remove our elected representatives from office. Which those representative would really not like to happen. So they promote the propaganda that we are a nation of absolutes, That we have these god given rights that are safe from government intrusion, except those rights have been eroded by a series of laws enacted to “protect” us that actually give the government massive power to intrude into those rights virtually unrestricted.

Here’s a great quote from Jefferson when talking about our rights, “ Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

We can certainly discuss what your equal rights are with respect to the exercise of my rightful liberty, but it’s a safe bet that what Jefferson meant wasn’t that we should be discussing the censure of Chuck Schumer over some stupid commentary. Of course Schumer is a disgusting hypocrite because he was quite happy when Obama arrested a journalist for blaspheming Islam, a pretense to cover gross ineptitude in Benghazi.

Senators who suggest that we censure other Senators for speech are the kind of Senators who will also gladly limit your speech if it suits their political goals.

My hope in writing these articles is that you find a couple of takeaways to consider, where do we the people actually want the government involved in our lives and why…and does the law in our Republic actually serve the founders desire to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority? My answer to the latter is a firm “not at all”. We are happily devolving into a society divided along party lines, economic lines, and racial lines because it suits the “ruling class” to keep us after each other instead of after them.

I will continue to be the misguided nudge I’ve always been, that surly curmudgeon who distrusts not only my neighbors but my government to my very core largely due to my personal experience and observations. There are few things that are made better with the generous application of government to the problem.

So Chuck Schumer, you sir are an asshole of the first order. You are a hypocrite, you are also exactly what is wrong with the elected representatives of this nation. You lack integrity, you lack honesty, and you lack any actual moral fiber that would define character as honorable in any normal American citizen. And yet, I will never seek to punish you formally for your disgusting verbal outbursts. My sincere hope is that your constituents will come to their senses and punish you in the most appropriate manner, by returning you to the private sector post haste.

Beyond that, say your peace and be prepared for the commentary from the cheap seats, because we will also choose to exercise our rights you disgusting, reprehensible, liar.

As always, feel free to tell me exactly how wrong I am. See you in the cheap seats my friends.

VoV

As always, thank you for your thoughts and insight, VoV. Agree or not, we all look forward to your writings.

Category: DC Government, Democrats, Guest Post, Legal, Politics, SCOTUS, The Constitution

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Comm Center Rat says:

    VOV: “So Chuck Schumer, you sir are an asshole of the first order. You are a hypocrite…”

    I can’t agree more. Chuckie Cheese graduated from Harvard Law School in 1974, passed the bar exam in early ’75 but never practiced law. Instead, in 1975 he was elected to the NY State Assembly serving three terms until 1981. He was then elected to the US House in 1981 serving until 1999 when he entered the US Senate.

    Schumer is the professional politician that Thomas Jefferson warned of. For 45 continuous years Schumer has enriched himself on the fat of the land while pretending to be a patriot and protector of the downtrodden. Unfortunately, Chuckie is only 69 years old so he’s got another two decades to continue to weaken The Republic.

  2. 26Limabeans says:

    I will happily defend anyones right to speak.
    Even that repugnant New York Senator that was
    scraped off the bottom of a jockey’s shoe.

    Thanks for pointing to the first amendment in
    this particular case. It compels us to think
    long and hard about our most precious right.

  3. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    Fuck Schoo-mah and his ilk.

  4. 5th/77th FA says:

    Standing Applause!!!!

    Hey Chuckie Smuckie. I put your right to free speech right up there next to my right to interpret your speech as “fightin’ words.” Pappy, hold my beer. I got another kind of can Imma gonna open on this parasitic slug on society.

  5. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Censure of a Senator by the Senate is also protected free speech.

    • rgr769 says:

      It is also a political act, not a legal one. It doesn’t even have any legal consequences, unlike impeachment and removal from office. In any event, Schumer is saying he and his ilk are entitled to mount whatever public attacks in their propaganda media they deem useful just like they already pulled on Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearing. Too bad Cucky Schemer can’t be sued into poverty for all the libel and slander he and his D-rat cabal have perpetrated against Justice Kavanaugh and others.

  6. David says:

    Freedom of speech defends almost all repugnant speech from anything but repercussions when it is expressed. In an extreme case, you can call a respectable woman a whore to her face… but don’t be shocked if her companion feeds you a knuckle sandwich or worse when you do so. Johnny Cash famously said that we even have the freedom to burn the flag… then followed that with “but if you burn my flag I will shoot you.”

  7. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    So Chuck Schumer, you sir are an asshole of the first order. You are a hypocrite, you are also exactly what is wrong with the elected representatives of this nation. You lack integrity, you lack honesty, and you lack any actual moral fiber that would define character as honorable in any normal American citizen. And yet, I will never seek to punish you formally for your disgusting verbal outbursts. My sincere hope is that your constituents will come to their senses and punish you in the most appropriate manner, by returning you to the private sector post haste.

    A-FUCKING-MEN!

  8. OWB says:

    As offensive and disturbing as his words are, I must agree with you VOV. What really offends and disturbs me is the thought that had any of us publicly said the same things about him and/or Ms P that we would have been face planted and hauled off for a bit of reeducation.

  9. Charles says:

    Look at what was actually said:

    “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

    “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    And so the questions are:

    1 – What “price” will the justices pay? Does Schumer intend to cut their paycheck? That’s unconstitutional, see: ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts…shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    Fine them by passing a law? That’s unconstitutional as well. See federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10: “No Bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    [Yeah, I know, since when has an action being unconstitutional stopped a Democrat?]

    What will “hit them?”

    Physically? Did Sen. Schumer just make a terroristic threat. (Actually, I’d like to see a one on one between either of two younger and stronger justices against the old goat).

    A young man who made a smart-ass comment upon picking up an AR-15 he had legally bought, stating “This ought to make the snowflakes melt,” an obvious non-violent dig at leftest youngsters who are scared of black rifles, was actually arrested and jailed under red flag laws.

    Perhaps the Justices should seek Red Flag relief and/or an Order of protection against Schumer.

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    I keep hoping that one day, the last words coming out of the mouth of a twerpy, self-involved, self-important jackass like Schumer will be so vile that he suffers a stroke on the spot, and can’t take back what he said.

    Then he can remove himself from the rest of us, and live with his crap.

    It would be nice to see someone get right in his face about it before he’s halfway through what he said, but there really has to come a “no takesies-backsies” point for him and others like him.

    And they are the ones who accuse the rest of us of “hate speech”, while spewing it like an uncontrolled sewage flow….

  11. lt all boils down to the old double standard that all shitbird demorats have the right to say all sorts of shit, BUT when someone else whom is not from their 4th Reich says something that is equal to what chuckie cheese schumer said, all hell breaks loose. Just saying.

  12. USMC Steve says:

    An interesting read but not germane to the issue. Schumer committed a crime. He threatened someone. That is a crime. Not free speech, not protected speech, but a crime. Given the current level of mental retardation and fullbore insanity present in just about everyone in his party, it is entirely believable. He should be held accountable and prosecuted for it.

  13. The Other Whitey says:

    You’re not wrong, VOV. Not wrong at all.

    My main issue is that if I, a private citizen, had said that, I would be spending some quality time as “guest” of the FBI. I should receive no more scrutiny than he does if I express my wish that somebody would rearrange Chucklefuck’s face, provided I don’t act on it. Standards should apply equally.

  14. IS1 (SW) says:

    Cryin’ Chuck is an embarrassment to this country; a pimple on the ass of America.

    Seriously, what is it with this guy? Hairy one-eye Reid was a butt dumpling of the first order, but Cryin’ Chuck takes this to a whole new universe.

    At least the GOP attempted to work with Oblameo when he was in office; this cock chankre does whatever it takes to hold up government.

    The Democrats and their media are truly enemies of the people.

  15. Poetrooper says:

    VOV, we should be careful not to equate censure with criminalization. In this Schumer case, should it come to pass, censure is merely the expressed “sense” by a majority of the Senate that one of their members has performed unwisely.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

    Censure can involve expulsion from the censuring body but it carries no criminal penalties and can therefore not be seen as a violation of an individual’s free speech rights. A limitation? An imposition? Certainly it is both but life is full of such limitations as those here who have served can attest. When you voluntarily become part of an organization, you agree to perform according to its rules.

    Considering the fairly recent attack on the congressional Republican ballplayers, Schumer’s threat was certainly ill-advised and truly unworthy of so prominent a government figure.

  16. penguinman000 says:

    I was in a Constitutional Law class and the attorney teaching it said something about the Constitution I’ll never forget.

    “The true genius of the Constitution is it clarifies the right of the people to be left alone by their government.”

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      Indeed, protected from the tyranny of the majority is one of my favorite concepts behind the Republic as opposed to a simple Democracy.