Martin O’Malley confirms that he won’t be the VICE Presidential candidate, either.

This is classic O’Malley. To wit: the pontification of a man so desperate to be seen as relevant that he is willing to douse himself in flammable stupid, then strike a match.

…It’s not every day that you see a former governor of a reasonably important state announce that the time for monarchy in America had finally come. How do I put this gently? OK, I’ve got it: THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STRIKE OUT ENTIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, YOU DAFT IDJIT.

Ladies and gentlemen: witness the inevitable end-result of a one-party state! Don’t let this happen to yours.

7 thoughts on “Martin O’Malley confirms that he won’t be the VICE Presidential candidate, either.”

  1. Of course, we’re only one Justice away from SCOTUS being willing to approve such an act, and hence armed rebellion afterwards.

  2. Among the other fruits and nuts in my family mueslii, there’s a lawyer who thinks this is the *best* *idea* *EVAR*!

  3. Maine and the Shire of Newhamp seem blessed to have avoided the blithering domination of a single group so far. Tinfoil Hats by Paul(tm) are still fashionable in enough places here, but hey, whatever avoids catastrophe. Then said Idjits from Away move up here and bring their dumbass voting patterns with them…..

  4. And Obama didn’t have the conditional authority to go to war with Libya.
    And Kennedy didn’t have the conditional power to write a law mandating the redefinintion of marriage.
    Congress didn’t have the constitutional power to mandate private citizens buy a product they may not want at extortionate prices.
    Obama didn’t have the constitutional power to declare GM and Chrysler to be financial institutions, or elevate unsecured creditors over secured creditors.
    Bush II did not have the constitutional power to underwrite private corporations at public expense.
    The Supreme Court did not have the conditional authority to destroy the bicameral structure of state governance in the name of “one person, one vote”.
    The 10th Amendment makes it clear that nearly everything the federal government does, is done in open violation of the Constitution.
    You’re saying something true, but also something irrelevant. Our government firmly believes that anything they can get away with is legitimized by the simple fact that they got away with it.
    Consent of the governed, meet silence implies assent.
    Granted, I very much doubt he’d get away with it.
    But not because of other politicians or the media having respect for constitutional limitations.

  5. O’Malley sounds like the obvious candidate. Hillary would want someone crazier than she is, so they can’t get rid of her.

    OTOH, who are they going to ask to confiscate the firearms?
    Or will it be a voluntary turn-in program? Yeah, that’ll work!

    1. It’d be a setup for the biggest incidence of civil disobedience in American history.
      As Obama has never been in the military, or even knows much about military affairs, he’s probably completely unaware of the unwritten rule of command: never give an order that you know won’t be obeyed…

  6. I think he should start collecting them himself. in some Chicago hood. without armed bodyguards. must set a good example, right?

Comments are closed.