Before We Fail to Recognize It

mirror, mirror…

I will assume y’all recognize these principles.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But these?

Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WV] “The problem we have – and really, the firewall that we have right now – is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘Yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there?” he said on MSNBC ["Morning Joe”]

“Due Process” Bad Idea.

“So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?” he asked. “Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement.”

He added: “But due process is what’s killing us right now.”

Also a Good Idea: a sentence for being “under suspicion” by the Fed. .Gov…

…and an agreement.


  1. DougM (quiet, keeps to himself, kind of a loner, nobody thought he’d do anything like this)
    Posted June 20, 2016 at 11:34 am |

    Of course, I agree.
    Can we count Hillary (under FBI investigation) as “under suspicion”?
    Oh, right, she’s “in agreement.”

    Why isn’t she on the no-fly list as a flight risk?
    Doesn’t matter, though, she should be prohibited from owning a firearm due to her uncontrollable temper and spousal-abuse history.

  2. drew458
    Posted June 20, 2016 at 12:07 pm |

    Oughta hang him just for making that statement. Or at least fire him and strip him of all benefits. On the spot. Seriously, how can you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and even have thoughts like that, much less let them out of your stupid mouth? Dude, you are so gone. Bye.

  3. Fawkes News (Brother, you asked for it!)
    Posted June 20, 2016 at 12:43 pm |

    Donald thinks this whole no-fly, no-guns thing is just terrific.

    Quite a Constitutionalist you’ve got there, Pubs.

  4. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted June 20, 2016 at 12:51 pm |

    He added: “But due process is what’s killing us right now.”
    No, the last time I looked, Joe, it was Islamic religious fanatics killing us, not the Constitution.
    OTOH, the Dems are doing a pretty good job of killing the Constitution.

  5. TheOldman
    Posted June 20, 2016 at 5:04 pm |

    Well I’m suspicious of all self-described “progressives” so they must all be subjected to a five-year waiting period.