Art 1 Sec 1 – Sen Mark Pryor (D-AR) Demonstrates the Obvious

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

And piling on the Separation of Powers discussion, this piece today from Hot Air, detailing the fact that Senator Mark Pyror (D-AR) will most likely NOT support DiFi’s gun grab “this time” even though he did in 2004.

His reasoning? Simple… he faces re-election soon and supporting a gun grab bill may not sit well with his constituents.

So my question to Senator Pryor is simply this: was the bill Constitutional in your view in 2004? If so, has the bill changed into an unconstitutional variant? If it hasn’t, then you are DUTY bound to support it.

Is this not exactly what the Oath of Office to the Constitution and not to Party or re-election was supposed to do? It reminds us of why it so very important to ask the Constitutional position questions of ALL political office seekers and to get them to carve their positions in stone.

Where is Mark Pyror’s honor?

Dave Sig copy


Posted on January 31, 2013, in Article 1, Constitution, Dave, Electoral Qualifications, House of Representatives. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Are you seriously suggesting that a change in policy advocacy is a violation of the oath of office? I’m going to garble the quote, but something vaguely like “no man should be ashamed to admit he was wrong, which is just another way of saying he is wiser today than he was yesterday”, by Pope.
    He never promised to enact all legislation that he thought was within the bounds of the constitution. Following the constitution amounts to a conditional, not biconditional, obligation.


    • Sorry, I hate double posting, but I really should clarify my last sentence: the obligation imposed by the oath is expressed in symbolic logic as a conditional, not a biconditional.


  2. No. I am seriously suggesting that the People of the great state of Arkansas should actually ASK Senator Pryor exactly WHAT his position is and WHY it is whatever it is. Clearly he is “flexible” enough to decide once that gun bans are fine and later that they are not. What changed his mind?

    In 2010 Steve Poizner ran for Governor or California as a Pro-Life advocate. Problem, his entire career he’d been pro-choice. He NEVER answered the question, “What changed your mind?”

    The basic point of what I have said here is that ALL politicians are failing to live up to thier word, they have and are failing to live up to the oaths and it is up tot he people to hold them accountable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: