Lindsey Graham tweets but doesn’t debate

Lindsey Graham, senior Senator from the State of South Carolina, was one of the senators who voted to prevent debate on the background checks bill. Graham doesn’t like debate in the Senate, he often supports filibuster (which ironically originally meant to continue debate; i.e., preventing voting;under the revision yo the filibuster rules in the Senate, it now just mean no voting and therefore it obviates the need for debate). But he is a great fan of twitter. Today he tweeted on and on his little thoughts on immigration, gun rights, Benghazi and the usual  wingnut subjects.

He had a special tweet on the Boston bombing suspect:

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to “remain silent.”

The limitations of tweets are such that he could not expand on this thought. (Not allowing for expanded thoughts is what drew Graham to twitter in the first place.) And we know he doesn’t debate, so we may never know why he believes the 2nd Amendment deserves unrestricted application while a suspect should be deprived of his 5th Amendment rights at his say-so. Maybe because those who profit from unlimited gun sales contribute money to him and his while those depending on procedural protections in criminal cases usually cannot buy off senators?

Since he won’t debate, we’ll never know. Unless of course we’re in the inner sanctum of the NRA.

Advertisements
  1. Excellent post! What is wrong with the Amendments to our Constitution OTHER than the 2nd? lol. This incongruity has always cracked me up.

    Keep-on-postin!

    • Thank you, Glenn.

      There are other provisions of the document wingnuts find so sacred that they have either forgotten about or sold. And I’m not talking about the Civil War Amendments which Southerners (and therefore Republicans) still oppose.
      As you have pointed out, until they saw political advantage in it, they simply waived their war-making powers. (Democrats have even less use for them; they don’t even use them for a political bargaining chip.)

      But there is one provision that was actually designed to prevent the kind of military-inustrial-entertainent complex which erodes all the civil rights contained in the Amendments. Ever since the reign of James II the “advanced” or Radical Whigs or Commonwealthmen thought that the real threat to liberty (directly and through the ease by which they allowed for foreign wars) was the availability of the Standing Army to the Executive. Of course all the wars that no one can remember from that time, the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Jenkins’ Ear, the War of Austrian Succession, and so forth, all were possible only because the modern executive had at his disposal a ready and willing Army.

      The Whigs after our Revolution (most fervently the Virginia contingent of the Democrats but even the conservative Federalists who drafted the document) wanted a limit on Standing Armies. And so in the legislature’s enumerated powers is this provision: “To raise and support Armies, but

        no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

      …” Congress is simply not supposed to provide for an Army whose life is to last longer than two years.

      What limitations would our Leader think himself under if he couldn’t depend on funding in two years? Would we be in a War in Afghanistan that has lasted longer than the Soviets’ war there? Would our Executive be able to sign commitments to the government of Iraq without Senate approval, for example, about what we will do to protect them years from now? Indeed, would we be building our largest military-embassay in Baghdad at all?

      But that would be too radical a thought. Much better to perpetuate the fantasy that white secessionist militias are actually fighting to preserve “our” civil liberties. Keeping rapid fire rifles in the hands of lunatics is much more sensible than actually controlling military spending. So when the militias rise up and are crushed by the weapons that result from our spending half the world’s budget of military spending, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that their sponsors were the ones who continued rolling over their responsibility and giving a pass to the Executive to do as he pleases. It’s always much more comforting to be sold out by your ideological partners.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s