Barney Frank has one of the “brightest minds” in Washington.

His bright mind caused the housing crisis, banking crisis and our current economic crisis. Thanks, Barney. Being “bright” hasn’t saved us. The truly brilliant don’t have to have people going around spouting how brilliant they are. It should be obvious. What is obvious it that Barney isn’t worth the paycheck gets. He owes the country a refund.

One problem I see with that is that laws are written (or at least so it appears) by a bunch of barely hatched lawyers with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the subject about which they are writing.

The Democrat Party talking heads are quick to point out that Barney Frank has one of the “brightest minds” in Washington. Creative, maybe, since many homosexuals are renowned for it, but one of the most intelligent? Hardly.

Let’s not forget Chuck Schumer…reports from his side of the aisle, and his profile, are quick to point out that he has one of the highest IQ’s in the United States. I find him to be more sarcastic than clever…but, that’s just me.

On July 31st, 2010 at 1:24 pm, right_on said:

One problem I see with that is that laws are written (or at least so it appears) by a bunch of barely hatched lawyers with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the subject about which they are writing. Inevitably, they’re going to be stupid, overkill, and/or filled with loopholes that can be exploited by people who actually know what they’re doing. Too many of them seem to be aimed at some congressman’s (or some President’s) pet peeve, and are better off not being enforced. Seat belt laws spring immediately to mind – not that using seat belts isn’t a good idea, but that it isn’t any of the government’s business.

Tom Delay’s situation is a perfect example of what happens when you make overly restrictive rules that only apply to Republicans. Democrats exploit the rules by (1) ignoring them when they wish, and (2) using them against Republicans when they can.

In any event, I don’t see why anybody would be surprised that the ruling class ignores the law. It happens every time you create a situation where the subjects of the law are also the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The law IS technicalities.

Law is black and white, with some gray areas for circumstances (e.g. running a red light to make way for an emergency vehicle to pass.) The practice of law is based on technicalities, not the law itself. It’s those “technicalities” that counselors look for to get their clients out of hot water. I call them “loopholes” or “interpretations” that try to skirt the intent of the law in question.

We’re not talking about allegations, but rather actual violations of law, which can be proven quite simply, I would think: Did the accused follow the written or unwritten intent of the law? Can it be that simple, or must there always be an excuse for violating law? Evidence is key, is it not?

I think we’re all tired of hearing politicians excuse their unlawful actions by parsing the law; “But…the law doesn’t explicitly SAY that is prohibited!” And, it is usually uttered with some kind of smirk, grin, or release of nervous laughter.

As long as politicians know they have wriggle room to violate laws to which everyone else is held accountable, they will continue to look out for their own best interests, not the general public. So, yes, SAME standards, not higher ones.

Please explain how not tolerating lawlessness in elected officials is stupid.

It isn’t, of course. But the allegation is not the reality.

Was Tom Delay guilty of “lawlessness”?

The law IS technicalities. I HAS to be that. It is a clumsy sledge hammer. I know, I work with it every day.

You and I want a scalpel, and we have several already.

Zero Tolerance is just plain stupid in application.

Please explain how not tolerating lawlessness in elected officials is stupid.

Yes, we can mobilize to put them out of office during election cycles, but what can be done to hold their feet to the fire when they still have the major part of their term left?

I would think this type of pre-emption, letting them understand with no uncertainty, that if they cross the line (violate the law) they are gone, no excuses. How can it be made anymore simple than that?

Wouldn’t this be something even the least intelligent elitist could understand…not agree with, but comprehend?

There should be a “no excuses” clause that applies to all laws…no more “it was an oversight.” Nor, “a staffer” this or that. Zero tolerance! Elected officials and their staffs should be above reproach.

Respectful disagreement here.

Nobody should be held to any standard but THE standard. Not higher…not lower.

Zero Tolerance is just plain stupid in application.

I get your frustration. But it won’t be addressed with a new law. That could be ignored just as well as any current law, and we don’t suffer from a lack of laws. Quite the opposite.

Voting, working, militating, and resisting are all MUCH more effective in the face of wholesale corruption like we have rampant in our Collectivist capitals now.