The quote below is from this
thread. - Antipitas
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
My personal take on this is that while Law (legal) issues and Civil Rights issues have a political import, they are not politics directly. To me, politics is about the people in politics, their views, their proposals, party platforms, etc., and the interactions they engage in. In other words, what they are doing today, and proposing to do in the future, and especially the why.
How does one divorce the one from the other? Isn't that the very thinking that got us the 1994 AWB? We knew what Clinton was about; and what he was about became the law. We all suffered the result, the Congress saw a major changeover; and the author of the disaster, Bill Clinton, acknowledged the Democrat defeat was due to the 1994 AWB.
Are we to wait for the laws to be enacted before we discuss them; or are we allowed to discuss ways to prevent them from being enacted?
The laws come about, constitutionally, by those elected to do so. The differential is law created outside
of the constitution by apppointed bureaucrats in departments such as the EPA. Look at the disaster that Carol Browner caused when she created regulation -- ala law -- which included "particulate matter" in pollutants. Particulate matter includes pollen and windblown dust. Every city that was in compliance with EPA regulations went out of compliance overnight with the stroke of a pen by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat.
These bureaucrats are political appointments for no other than political gain. They create law through the regulatory power bestowed upon them by the politicians who appoint them.
Now ... think treasury and BATFE. They hold those same powers.
All law is politics.