This is an excellent write up of the relevant issues at hand here. I think you hit the nail exactly on the head: It is a travesty that the Constitution can only be protected in the past tense. Even then, I am not terribly optimistic that anyone will face actual penalties for violating the constitutional rights of citizens, indeed violating the very first enumerated right itself. I certainly would vote for fixing that.
Thank you for reading & commenting! If sworn to support & defend the Constitution, then those personnel should obviously be ready, willing and able to provide active defense and are, at a minimum, aware of the threats to #1A or #2A. Alas, the responsibility falls to the People. So, let's have our battle in the shade.
Indeed, that is what it so galling, that so many who took the oath see no problems with simply denying the contents of the Constitution. It is that sort of thing what makes me lose hope for our governmental institutions, as if the rot is that deep how can you trust any of the members?
Even if you assume good intentions, which is admittedly a stretch, simply acting as they did represents an amazing lacuna between concepts of what constitutes acceptable behavior. It is a "If you didn't understand that was wrong, I can't trust you to ever recognize what is right and wrong" sort of situation.
With federal agents like these, who needs criminals? I'm glad to see Missouri's attorney general is taking the fight to the constitution's enemies and scoring victories! More red state AGs need to follow his lead!
This is an excellent write up of the relevant issues at hand here. I think you hit the nail exactly on the head: It is a travesty that the Constitution can only be protected in the past tense. Even then, I am not terribly optimistic that anyone will face actual penalties for violating the constitutional rights of citizens, indeed violating the very first enumerated right itself. I certainly would vote for fixing that.
Thank you for writing this up.
Thank you for reading & commenting! If sworn to support & defend the Constitution, then those personnel should obviously be ready, willing and able to provide active defense and are, at a minimum, aware of the threats to #1A or #2A. Alas, the responsibility falls to the People. So, let's have our battle in the shade.
Indeed, that is what it so galling, that so many who took the oath see no problems with simply denying the contents of the Constitution. It is that sort of thing what makes me lose hope for our governmental institutions, as if the rot is that deep how can you trust any of the members?
Even if you assume good intentions, which is admittedly a stretch, simply acting as they did represents an amazing lacuna between concepts of what constitutes acceptable behavior. It is a "If you didn't understand that was wrong, I can't trust you to ever recognize what is right and wrong" sort of situation.
With federal agents like these, who needs criminals? I'm glad to see Missouri's attorney general is taking the fight to the constitution's enemies and scoring victories! More red state AGs need to follow his lead!