After discovering the cure for the common cold Christopher Monckton has taken up constitutional law.
"If by some miss chance the ETS scheme proceeds any further and actually gets passed into law, the next thing that will happen is that the courts will call it in and it will be declared unconstitutional and that would bring the Government down,'' Lord Monckton said.
I think his argument must go something like this:
- Log in to post comments
Not the cure for the common cold. The cure for flu, common cold, Multiple Sclerosis and HIV! The man is a genius. No wonder he's already got one Nobel Prize!
I went to the UK Patents Office website to get the full details, but it appears the Secret World Communist Government has already censored it, since there's nothing there (unless, of course, Monckton is behind all those patents for Continuous Production of Cheese).
I agree with Monckton: don't trust those who are proven liars and fabricators.
At least he didn't say that the CPRS breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No no no Mattb, he is The Lord after all.
But Tim, the guys in The Castle actually won the argument! ;-)
Now that is funny, Tim!
Somebody tell Tim Blair this post is meant to be humourous. Just so he knows.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: The Laird is the living embodiment of Poe's Law.
Funny coincidence,
Here in the U.S., our president tells us our Constitution is a document of "negative liberties", is "imperfect", is "flawed" and is a living document open to interpretation.
Oh, and many consider him a Lord.
Typical communist Kenyans.
Betula, you're such a card. But then again, what would you expect from a deni.. er, sorry "skeptic". They excel at that game. Let's have a look at the full transcript of the relevant interview passage:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it Iâd be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
Sounds quite differnet in full context, right? How does that hold up in comparison with the Patriot Act (still wonder why supposed conservatives and libertarians didn't riot on this one in the US - or did they?) and that famous Bush quote: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Oh, and you have heard of the so-called "Amendments" to the Constitution? Seems like feeling the Constitution to be "imperfect" has a very long tradition. You fail at taking potshots even harder than you do at climate change debate, Betula.
Jason W @10
You left out the transcipt where he called the Constitution "flawed". Anyhow, you state...
"Sounds quite differnet in full context, right?"
Yes. It sounds worse. I left out some of the content because it didn't relate to the post, but since you brought it up, I'll add them in..
"redistribution of wealth"
"constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"
"what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
"put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change"
Hey,I think he just described the AGW agenda!
Aw, c'mon Jason I'm only joking. We all know this isn't about resistibution of wealth, that's crazy talk.
Now, I'm baffled about how the topic of the Patriot Act and Bush entered into this, but once again, since you brought them up...
1. I recommend you take up the issue of the Patriot Act with Obama:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-supports-extending-patriot-act/sto…
2. I also recommend you fact check your quotes before making a fool of yourself. Since I can't seem to directly link to the fact check article, go to the following link, scroll down to "The Source Revealed" and click on "Ask FactCheck" item of Dec. 12, 2007....
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/an-unlawful-congress/
"Hey,I think he just described the AGW agenda!"
Yawn! And back we go to the grand old world communist/leftist government conspiracy theory. We need to take it out and dust it off every now and again.
I don't know how we got sidetracked into constitutional law, but since we're here I can at least draw attention to the consistency in utter jawdropping craziness between Republican science and Republican law.
Obama is quoted perjoratively as saying that the US Constitution is "imperfect" and "flawed"; that is, Betula herself presumably thinks it is perfect and without flaw. Apart from being, I would have thought, theologically unsound - if you regard every word of the Bible as divinely inspired and perfect, doesn't it rather diminish the uniqueness of the book to have to share that perfection with The Ratification of the Conventions of Nine States? - this does demonstrate the cast of mind that rejects any middle ground between (a) the unchallengeable and (b) the wrong, or evil. Unless the constitution or the IPCC report are perfect and without flaw they are useless and the work of the devil, which does explain why any minor glitch in the latter is seized upon so eagerly by denialists.
"You left out the transcipt where he called the Constitution "flawed""
For the 100%ers who think the constitution is perfect, well, they can take comfort that Obama is only three-fifths of a president.
WTF? The land clearing restrictions which he seems to be going on about are under State laws (where acquisition of land or rights without compo is not unconstitutional) or the EPBC Act which was introduced by Howard's mob way back in the late 90s! The CPRS legislation isn't waht the farmers are complaining about.
The Gov is on pretty strong grounds with the CPRS (and the EPBC Act) due to the external affairs power and international treaties like the UNFCCC, RAMSAR etc. Besides, if it was invalid, then so was all the MRET and GGAP legislation that the last Government introduced.
nicely put, boris. I would like to think that would shut betula up, but i suspect not.
Betula, seeing as you managed to get Obama and the US Constitution into a thread on a nutty British Lord commenting on Australian law it seemed appropriate to provide a little perspective on statements regarding the US Constitution. That's how the Patriot Act - a law against the spirit AND the letter of the Constition if there ever was one - got into the discussion. Sorry if that went over your head.
It is disappointing that Obama decided to uphold the contentious passages of the law, and there have been other disappointments, but in the face of the poo storm coming from the right fringe he's holding up very well.
This "redistribution of wealth" thing - that really a bone of contention amongst conservatives. Coming from a European background, I find the term far less scandalous than you - if you were to actually try to understand the nuances of what Obama could mean, instead of shouting "SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST!" you might find it palatable. As it stands, it just reminds me of this clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI I know it's hard to fathom for Americans, but the Obama Administration, far from being socialist, would be considered barely center-left here in Europe.
And: "AGW agenda"? It's telling if you have to resort to the old conspiracy argument. Or were you were joking again?
Just to show that not all journalists are taken in by Monckton, have a read of this [superb piece by Mike Carlton in the Sydney Morning Herald today](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/debunking-the-myths-b…)
Delicious! And Monckton's likeness has been captured well in the associated illustration.
"Smell that love?.......2 stroke" And Monckton should know.... he is affiliated with Exxon Mobile after all. No conflict of interest there then......