Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) takes a leaf out of the Kim dynasty's book

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fortunately, since Article III of the Constitution explicitly bans guilt by familial association, and the Fifth Amendment bans guilt without due process, Cotton sheepishly withdrew the amendment.

Sometimes I wonder if these Republicans in Congress do these things purely for satirical comedy value.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I heard that there is cotton manufacturing in Iran. Therefore, anyone with the last name Cotton needs to spend 20 years in prison.

[DC Al Fine]

GOP wants to make people disappear and a Democratic administration asserts the right to assassinate American citizens without trial. Why are you guys even pretending you are in a free country?

[angus]

Sometimes I wonder if these Republicans in Congress do these things purely for satirical comedy value.

Cotton has a BS in Government from Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude.  He is also a Harvard Law School alumnus.  You really do have to wonder why our brightest lawyers do these things.  I'd also like to think it is for shock value, but I think it may be more sinister.  No holds will be barred in the new holy war, and if it's controversial then they get one of the younger guys to make a sound-bite to gauge reaction before they actually vote.

[TDAS04]

Shameful. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Cotton has a BS in Government

Indeed, he has.

[King]

GOP wants to make people disappear and a Democratic administration asserts the right to assassinate American citizens without trial. Why are you guys even pretending you are in a free country?

Assassinating overseas defected citizens in Mali is an actually a good counterterrorism measure while this is fascism.

[Indy Texas]

Sometimes I wonder if these Republicans in Congress do these things purely for satirical comedy value.

Cotton has a BS in Government from Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude.  He is also a Harvard Law School alumnus.  You really do have to wonder why our brightest lawyers do these things.  I'd also like to think it is for shock value, but I think it may be more sinister.  No holds will be barred in the new holy war, and if it's controversial then they get one of the younger guys to make a sound-bite to gauge reaction before they actually vote.

It seems like the Tea Party has been using people like this of late as messengers to legitimize whatever is on their agenda for the day. They basically say, "Well the guy who's proposing this is on our side and he went to Harvard so he can't be totally off base!" Ted Cruz is basically the Senate version of this.

They misunderstand that the problem the rest of us have with people like Sarah Palin isn't that they went to unglamorous schools in flyover country. Sarah Palin isn't stupid because she went to some random state school in Idaho no one's heard of. However, I think it's safe to say that one of the reasons she went to said random state school in Idaho is that she wasn't smart enough to get into anyplace better than that. The causality only flows in one direction.

They also insist that Obama only attended Harvard and Columbia due to affirmative action, but consider it totally outside the realm of possibility that people like Ted Cruz or Thomas Sowell also might have gotten into schools like that to fulfill various diversity quotas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Huffpost brings it's brilliant legal analysis once again.

This amendment wouldn't have punished "family members of people who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran." If you listen to Cotton's remarks, it should be pretty clear what this is about. The bill is to place sanctions on Iranians who are involved with human rights violations.  This amendment is to extend those sanctions to family members, to prevent funds from being funneled through them. 

Now consider how often sanctions are placed against entire nations with very little concern about whether it violates the Constitution.

If you want to see a real instance of violations of the article III section 2, look at civil asset forfeiture in the war on drugs.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Cotton is quite the young neocon, isn't he?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Republicans sure love the constitution except for all the times they seem to hate the constitution.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Never heard of him until today. That spells attention whore to me.

[angus]

It seems like the Tea Party has been using people like this of late as messengers to legitimize whatever is on their agenda for the day. They basically say, "Well the guy who's proposing this is on our side and he went to Harvard so he can't be totally off base!" Ted Cruz is basically the Senate version of this.

They misunderstand that the problem the rest of us have with people like Sarah Palin isn't that they went to unglamorous schools in flyover country. Sarah Palin isn't stupid because she went to some random state school in Idaho no one's heard of. However, I think it's safe to say that one of the reasons she went to said random state school in Idaho is that she wasn't smart enough to get into anyplace better than that. The causality only flows in one direction.

They also insist that Obama only attended Harvard and Columbia due to affirmative action, but consider it totally outside the realm of possibility that people like Ted Cruz or Thomas Sowell also might have gotten into schools like that to fulfill various diversity quotas.

That started off being a damn good post, but then you went in another direction.  I'm not saying that I disagree with any of it--I'm about two sheets to the wind at the moment and can't really comment on the analytical part--but I do think that the thesis you stated in the first paragraph is interesting.  It's like they're using the young, well-heeled, studs to help them hoist some pretty heavy, shit-filled boxer shorts up the flagpole to see if they'll fly.  (To be fair, the Democrats do the same things, but it's just that lately the weirder ideas do seem to be coming from the GOP.)  In this particular instance, a member of the loyal opposition, Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), quickly noticed that it was pretty far fetched.  (Grayson is also a Haav'd man, by the way.)  Very quickly wiser minds prevailed.  According to the original quoted article:

Several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee acknowledged that stashing assets with family members can be a problem. But they noted that other provisions in the bill would ensnare family members who conspired with those who violate the sanctions. Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) suggested that Cotton withdraw his amendment and narrow its language.

Nevertheless your post, in its entirety, was compelling.  Notice that there's no mention in the article of whether Royce, a Cal State Fullerton man and well-known tax reformer, put Cotton up to it in the first place.  I'm not going to bring the Tea Party into this--you already did, conveniently--but it is fortunate that Royce was there to quash it once everybody in the house noticed that Cotton's idea was unconstitutional.  After all, who can forget Royce's vote for a constitutional amendment forbidding flag burning and his desire to make the PATRIOT act permanent.  You may be on to something.