• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • The Perrin Lovett Show

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Thoughts on Freedom and The West

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: abortion

Law Schools: Deans, Dunces, and Degeneracy

28 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Amercia, attorneys, children, Christians, communism, education, First Amendment, free thought, free-speech, hero, Hobos, idiocy, law school, Madison Gesiotto, Miss Ohio, Moritz College of Law, Natural Law, Nazis, Planned Parenthood, Political correctnous, socialism, students, THE Ohio State University, univerity, writing

This week I protested the wholesale stupidity and cowardice of high school administrators in Massachusetts. Sadly, I now have bigger fish to fry. Fry them I shall. Last night I read about the utter demise of the Moritz College of Law at THE (they put emphasis on that word) Ohio State University.

You may recall my reflections on my own Legal “Education” – a process which bears little resemblance to the legal profession and none to the actual law. Law schools obsess over “positive law,” meaning statutes and court decisions (particularly the courts). There the Natural Law is a heresy.

In general law schools are not worth attending. They offer three years of state worship, communism and idiocy in exchange for entry into a failed and depressing career. THE Ohio State law school provides an excellent example.

Until about 40 or 50 years ago American universities were places where ideas were exchanged and cultivated. Law schools were supposedly high bastions of legal theory. I say supposedly because they also served as gatekeepers for the attorneys’ professional monopoly. Many of our best lawyers – Jefferson, Adams, Spooner, etc. – did not attend law schools – they “read” or self studied the law while apprenticed to a practicing attorney. I digress…

Elementary and high schools provided the base education. They made sure graduates could read, write, add and think for themselves. They also instilled a sense of history and scientific wonder and civic appreciation. Colleges were where serious scholars furthered their learning. Graduate schools were reserved for the elite.

Everything has changed now. Grade schools today serve as temporary detention centers where the inmates are indoctrinated as they await entry into either real prisons, menial employment (becoming rarer), or college admissions. The colleges serve as hosts for semi-professional football teams, sex and drug parties, and havens for the mentally defective, otherwise unemployable people known as “academics.”

Colleges, to include law schools, babysit a generation of uneducated, uninterested, uninteresting weaklings. The students demand “safe spaces.” They obsess over trivial or purely imaginary sufferings of which they have no understanding. They are unfamiliar with free thought or the value of a question. The staff and professors, still mourning the loss of the Soviet Union, cater to this legion of wusses in a desperate bid to keep their own irrelevant jobs. They cater and coddle so long as the little snowflakes are politically correct. The free-thinker, the libertarian, the conservative, the proudly Caucasian and the Christian are considered enemies within.

Madison Gesiotto found out about the deplorable intellectual dishonesty and spinelessness of the Moritz College of Law the hard way. The stunning beauty queen (Miss Ohio USA) came to Moritz for the stunning purpose of furthering her education. A pro-life Catholic and an accomplished writer, she penned a story about the devastating effects of the abortion industry on the black community.

This was a triple sin. First, Christians are supposed to be silent should they even be allowed inside the temples of government worship. Second, abortion is a sacrament to the cult and never to be questioned. Third, and a recent development, the black community is not to be mentioned outside of glowing support for the black lives matter bullshit and other small sects of discontent.

A reasonable, thoughtful person would glean from Madison’s article her concern for black children, all children, murdered by the Satanic likes of Planned Parenthood. The American abortion trade was born of racist Nazi origin. One would think liberals and the modern race hustlers would declare war on rather than fully defend such an institution. Those black lives must not matter.

For her sincere concern and honest scholarship Madison received scorn and even a threat. “The government cannot take action against you for your offensive and racist article. But your colleagues can,” wrote some idiot on Madison’s Facebook page. Madison does not know the fool who posted this statement (smart enough not to be criminal but dumb enough for national condemnation) though she knows or suspects he is a student at Moritz.

I wrote to Madison too, informing her that her online stalker is a wuss and not to be feared. I can almost guarantee he sleeps with a nightlight – the kind who flits about in skinny jeans – the kind just brave enough to threaten a girl on the internet – the kind that finds girls “icky.”

We can tell a good bit about our e-vilgilante by his choice of words. He starts: “The government cannot take action against you …” He really wishes it could. He’s a socialist or Nazi at heart. Anything he deems inappropriate should be a crime. The government should take action.

“…for your offensive and racist article.” Up is down and black is white to these itty bitty babys. An article condemning the murder of several hundred thousand black children each year is racist. Does the bedwetter want them killed? Why? Perhaps his cry is a transferring admission of a conscious he is personally afraid of. And “offensive.” Lefties love nothing more than to be offended by something. Rather than threaten Madison they should thank her for giving them something to cry about.

“But your colleagues can.” Can what? Take what action? Whatcha pansies gonna do? They’ve done it. They sent a Facebook message. They have now exhausted their powers. One would hope they are now safely back in the safe room being safe. You can’t help but feel sorry for them. It’s like coming across a terminally injured rabbit (except the bunny thinks a bit more and isn’t afraid of girl bunnies).

Using this dork as a benchmark Madison has no colleagues at Moritz. She must stand out like a tree among weeds. That last line – the threat – was a subtle warning that politically incorrect thought and expression will be punished by the legal community. The sentiment was echoed by the school itself as I will note shortly.

So what? Madison can’t be kicked out for free speech (though that would rid her of all this stupidity). Perhaps the Ohio Bar will frown on her application. Odds are the review personnel are not smart enough or industrious enough to connect these dots. Even if they did, they can be sued just like a law school. Maybe Madison won’t have the luxury of slaving away 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for years at a big “prestigious” law firm. The kind of firm where, if you survive, they come to you one day and tell you you’re not moving up so it’s time to move out.  Horrors!

No, Madison’s future is secure. She was bright enough to make it on her own anyway. Now, as a victim of statist discrimination, she is a national sweetheart. People (most of us) still love real women and real Americans. She’s probably already had job offers. Maybe book offers. She will be on national television this weekend to explain her experience.

Now, let us look at the school itself. Feeling threatened Madison did what she was supposed to. She contacted the school and arranged a meeting with the dean. At the meeting she found herself confronted by three deans. They blew off her concerns for her safety and freedom and immediately attacked her and her article.

“This is a flawed article, it’s not a good legal piece, it’s not a good journalistic piece, either,” snorted her trio of over(tax)paid assailants. Like the Facebook bully these “academics” revealed a bit of their psyche and lack of mental horsepower. Their statement revealed a lack of understanding of journalism, legal or otherwise.

Dean Alan C. Michaels said he “takes any alleged threat against its students very seriously.” The thought bubble over his head continued, “except in this case. We’re going to abuse the victim here.”

Alan, who graduated from Harvard and Columbia, can be reached at (614) 292-0574. He’s a former prosecutor and criminal law specialist. Criminal. You know. Like threatening remarks criminal. Criminal negligence in refusing to investigate threats. Pitiful. If the roles were reversed, Madison would be in a holding cell somewhere. Pathetic.

Dean Kathy Seward Northern ((614) 292- 7750) alerted Madison she had reached out to the Moritz’s Black Law Students Association and found them not a threat to Madison. This was pointless as Northern knew the stalker was white and likely not a member of the BLSA. Her real intent was probably to fan emotions in the BLSA against Madison’s raaaaaaacism (defending black babies and all that). Her specialty is “environmental racism” whatever the hell that is.

The hidden agenda worked. The BLSA said they were OFFENDED by the racist article. Again, she made their day, showering them with glorious offense. Not mine. All this offense taking is beginning to offend me.

Northern told Madison (probably while looking down her nose) “that in her mind this article could be taken various ways and left questions to be answered.” Yeah, idiot, that’s what good journalism does. It provokes questions. Thoughts. Discussion.

The deans did recommend a “facilitated discussion” between Madison and her intellectual and emotional inferiors. She wisely refused. Such a session would have consisted of lowbrow freaks taunting the young woman (while maybe also flinging poo at her) while the deans looked on in smug approval.

A third dean was mentioned but remains unidentified. It’s as likely as not it was a homeless person pulled in off the street by Michaels and Northern. Hobos look and act much like law school deans. He obviously added nothing memorable to the conversation.

The Moritz website touts its faculty: “Brilliant scholars and devoted teachers, our professors are passionate about making lasting contributions in their fields of expertise and in the lives of their students.” I ponder their lasting contributions to Madison. Maybe they did teach her something – personal fortitude in the face of socialism.

Like a champion, Madison remains undeterred. She wrote another excellent article in her own defense. 

I am Catholic, I am conservative, I am an American, I am a woman, I am a millennial, I am a law student and I am proud.

I am not afraid to voice my opinions and refuse to be stifled by the unwillingness of others to accept views, beliefs or behaviors different from their own.

Madison, Washington Times.

You. Go. Girl.

Concerned Women for America and other groups have come to her defense. Not that she needs it. She has single-handedly defeated the fascists of Moritz. She did it by merely standing up to them. They have no power over her and will fear her going forward. They also have nothing to teach her though this incident has given her an education of sorts.

Madison is beautiful, brave, talented and a winner. She can’t be alone in academia. If there remain even a few like her, then the institution is not completely lost.

northern_kathyHobo-Costume1

The dynamic deanery.

 

Advertisements

Friend of Freedom: My Remembrance of Bobby Franklin

26 Wednesday Aug 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

abortion, America, Bobby Franklin, children, Christian, church, Constitution, Courts, Devil, Federal Judges, freedom, George Bush, Georgia, God, government, guns, legislation, murder, politicians, press, principles, regulations, Second Amendment, Senate, taxes, The People

Several days ago several of my friends lamented both the constant barrage of stories about abortion and the subject itself.  All averredly pro-life they are none-the-less tired of hearing about Planned Abor…Parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life, and broken Republican rhetoric.  One asked, “why doesn’t anyone just do something?”

Someone tried.  Oddly enough it was an elected Republican from Georgia who actually used his position of power to make a difference.  He tried time and again.  Failure to him only meant another chance to try again.

He was dead serious about protecting children in addition to championing various other causes of freedom.  He was one of the very few living politicians I admired. I knew the man personally.  His name was Bobby Franklin.

Robert “Bobby” Franklin represented Georgia’s 43rd House District (Cobb County) from 1997 until his death in 2011.

RepBobbyFranklin

Bobby Franklin at work.  Google.

A self-made businessman he served on the House Banking Committee, among others.  At one time he was chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee.  He consistently stood for less government and more freedom.  He was never shy of controversy.

His most famous stand was for those unborn Georgians.  In 2011 he made sure the very first bill in the House hopper was one which would have made abortion a felony punishable by either death or life in prison.  See: H.B. 1, 2011.  He rightly considered the practice a form of murder.

His hardest critics, had they not been weak cowards, would have possibly tried to murder Bobby himself for his stance.  Of course, they resorted to base distortion and lying, going so far as to say Bobby would criminalize ordinary miscarriage. These were and are the same sort of satanists who laugh while discussing chopping up living babies and then selling the parts.

You can read and judge for yourself the would-have-been effects of H.B. 1 via the link above.  Here is the pertinent part of the Bill, concerned with protecting the rights of all citizens:

bobby bill

H.B. 1, 2011, GA Gen. Assembly.

Extreme, huh?

Upon his untimely death his detractors still mocked:

Bobby Franklin was the demagogue the Founding Fathers feared and warned us about, a perfect example of the excesses of democracy that would strip the common American citizen of his or her rights.

If you must have a eulogy from me this morning, it will be this, and this only: Bobby Franklin was a danger to democracy and a danger to women and now he’s dead.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson, No Eulogies for Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, 
July 28, 2011. 

Nonsense, all of it.  The free people of the state had no better friend.

Bobby did want to strip away certain things from out the overfilled lumber room of Georgia law.  He wanted to strip out taxes.  He wanted to strip away regulations.  He wanted to strip away government involvement in people’s lives – to include abolishing the requirement for a state-issued driver’s license.

Had the ultra-left not been so preoccupied with killing babies they might have recognized Bobby’s position of licenses as similar to those of the 1960’s counter-culture.

“Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose,” Franklin’s legislation states. “Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.”
In an interview with CBS Atlanta News, Franklin claimed driver’s licenses are a throw back to oppressive times.

“Agents of the state demanding your papers,” he said. “We’re getting that way here.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/georgia-republican-nobody-should-need-a-driver-s-license

TPM Muckraker, Feb. 2, 2011.

He further proposed other “unthinkable” freedom-centered legislation, to include:

*The sole use of gold or silver as currency (where did he ever get that idea???);

*Taxing and regulating the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta like any other bank;

*Banning forced vaccinations;

*Eliminating the state income tax;

*Eliminating property taxes;

*Banning eminent domain;

*Recognizing that civil government is last and least after family, religion, and community;

*Protecting the right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense;

*Making it legal to carry a firearm into a Georgia church (actually passed three years after his death); and

*Mandating that questions of Constitutional Law be settled by elected officials in the General Assembly rather than the Courts.

Bobby never quite trusted the courts nor lawyers (maybe to include me..).  He was not afraid of them and did not worship their decisions as most lawyers do.  In fact, his H.B. 1, supra, would have specifically banned federal courts from reviewing his law, as they lacked jurisdiction (true if moot today):

bobby bill2

H.B. 1, 2011. Federal courts need not apply.

A little known fact about Bobby Franklin was that he actually wanted to become a Federal District Court Judge.  He once called me, during the early 2000s, to ask what the qualifications were and, specifically, if one had to be an attorney.  I explained to him he met all the (very few) technical qualifications.  There is no requirement that a federal judge of any sort be an attorney.  Some of the finest of all American jurists have been (long ago) non-lawyers.

We then discussed the political qualifications.  Politically, one does need to be an attorney.  One also needs to contribute heavily to a President’s campaign.  One must be capable of passing U.S. Senate scrutiny after securing a nomination.  I asked him if he thought George Bush (the dimmer) would nominate such an outspoken, relentless champion of liberty.  We laughed and he apparently dismissed the idea.  That was a shame.

I think what had stirred him to this unlikely career change idea was the flap over the separation of church and state caused by the public display here and there of the Ten Commandments.  I’m sure he had other reasons too.  He would have made a fantastic judge.

Bobby was a fantastic man.  A man in real life in addition to the newspapers and the state house.  We attended a men’s wild game dinner at the First Baptist Church in Woodstock together.  Then governor Sonny Perdue gave a short sermon before shotguns were raffled off.  Sometimes Georgia is a damn fine place!  Perdue actually gave a decent homily, concerning the wrath of the devil in our lives: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”  1 Peter 5:8, JKV.

That is a powerful verse and Perdue’s usage was well placed.  Powerful also was Bobby Franklin’s response to a joking question asked that night by another speaker.  Remember, it was a men’s group.  The speaker laughingly asked how many of us were “henpecked.”   A thousand or so of us sheepishly raised our hands.  Bobby did not.  Real. Man.

I found out he was gone one day when I was poking around my Facebook feed and realized Bobby wasn’t on anymore.  A Google search revealed his death to me.  As could be guessed from his legislative history, Bobby was a staunch Christian.  His death was discovered when he failed to show as usual at his church on Sunday morning.  He died of well-hidden heart problems.  One would have never suspected he took prescription medications of any kind – he was as physically fit as he was steadfast to his principles.

The popular press was a bit kinder than the lunatic left in its obituary:

“He was one of the few politicians who stood by what he believed in, whether you agreed with it or not.” …

“He would want to be remembered first as a person of faith and second as a person who loved his country and loved liberty.” …

“While he certainly was controversial, he was never vitriolic and was never mean. This is a very sad day for Georgia.”

Franklin could also often be a thorn in the side of Republican leadership. While his go-it-alone attitude was rarely problematic, he could tie up committee meetings for hours. A member of the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, he would frequently attempt to add anti-abortion language to unrelated bills to the exasperation of his colleagues.

He also was unafraid to challenge the speaker of the House, an act somewhat akin to challenging a king. On several occasions, even challenging a member of the same party, Franklin would force a vote of the full House in an attempt to overrule the speaker. This was true under both former Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, and current Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.

Franklin Remembered, AJC, July 26, 2011.

I suppose this is my belated good-bye to Bobby.  His loss was a sad blow to Georgia and America.  Also, sadly, we will not likely see his kind again.

The King is Dead, As Dead as the Culture

04 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, America, Cecil the Lion, murder, Planned Parenthood, Republicans, The People

Once again my friend, Michael Snyder, has hit the nail on the head.  This is an eye opener and a story to make you think. Cecil the Lion’s death is lamentable, yes. I’ve never been a fan of hunting zoo animals. How does one properly cook a lion? BUT, how does this compare to the murder of millions of children?

Do the people even care? It seems the triviality of modernity trumps atrocity. Hell, Kermit and Miss Piggy just Tweeted their divorce or something…

Yes, the killing of that lion in Zimbabwe was a horrible crime, and I hope that dentist is held accountable for it.

But how can that possibly compare to the absolutely sickening crimes against humanity that are being committed by Planned Parenthood every single day?

In typical Republican fashion, the Republicans have failed to do anything about the crimes carried out at Rehashed Nazi Eugenics, Inc., aka, Planned Parenthood.

At least the dentist who shot Cecil paid for his own hunt. You, by way of your taxes, pay for abortions everyday, like em or not.

jessa-duggar-cecil-cartoon

Google.

Friday Madness

19 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, bomb, Boston, Chechnya, choice, Gosnell, government, Islam, murder, terror, Waco

The Waco story is coming a little later; hang on.  The Boston terror story is on every media outlet at present.

On April 6, 2013 I wrote the following: “A forty-story skyscraper in Chechnya completely burned on all floors last week without collapsing neatly into its own footprint at free fall speed. The entire Chechnyan people have been declared terrorists.”  I am not a prophet, just really really good.

I doubt the stories are related.  However, I still smell something funny.  Read this historical record: Why Government Should Be The First Suspect In Any Terror Attack. 

Anyway, the man below is on the run, possibly held up and surrounded at present.

dt-294x300

(Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev.)

It is possible Dzhokhar and his dead brother planted the bombs and acted alone.  Let justice be served.  It’s also possible, despite the government lover’s mad assertions, the two were fall guys for some larger plot.  Let justice be served.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead.  I wonder if he will be buried at sea within 24 hours with no photographs… Just thinking.

I also wonder when Barney Fwank, Salon, Little Barry, and Co. will apologize to the right-wing extremists among us.  Don’t hold your breath.

Another story, not being covered by the lamestream media, is the murder prosecution of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia.  Gosnell is charged with seven counts for first degree murder for killing seven babies who survived his first attempts to murder …. abort them.  The babies were killed by having their necks snipped with scissors or by having their brains sucked out with a vacuum.  The seven (and many many more apparently) were born and alive (by liberal standards even) when they were killed.  Their bodies were ignobly placed in toilets, trash bags, and freezers.  The major media has all but censored the trial due to their allegiance with the satanic pro-murder crowd.  Is this what you people mean by “choice?”???  I hate to say it but I would enjoy beating Kermit to dead with my fists – slowly.

What a world we have here.

Constitutional Law

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II

This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/.  One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

tribe conlaw

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book.  Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution.  By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too).  I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice.  After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases.  Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world.  The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment.  I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution.  The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law.  If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law.  If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!:  Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes.  Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat.  She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg.  Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city.  Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size.  Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly.  Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity.  This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case.  If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires.  While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence). 

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points.  The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world.  Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants.  As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause.  All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything.  Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress.  Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism.  In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women.  This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies.  While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected.  However, the right, like all rights, has limits.  The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision.  Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life.  Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn.  However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision.  This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.”  Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights.  The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example.  Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone.  It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only. 

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives.  These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools.  In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people.  It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).  However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3.  Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories.  The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread.  While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast.  The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress.  Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats.  I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18.  It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers.  The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities.  Turns out they were right.  In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything.  It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel.  Frequently, it is the first.  There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors.  Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.).  This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks.  In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose.  However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights.  History indicates that “emergencies” never go away.  For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany.  We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII.  History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”  Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).  Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing.  Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance.  The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors.  The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will.  The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax.  See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012.  Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god.  Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights.  I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application.  For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.”  It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny.  I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment.  There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject.  The First is worthy of great attention.  However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts.  Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts. 

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review.  However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people.  For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process.  The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law.  It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect.  In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist.  I found this hard to believe.  Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past.  On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations.  I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering.  Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases.  Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution.  Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People.  With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society.  I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.”  I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet.  Someday…

Newer posts →

Perrin Lovett

perrinlovett@gmail.com

Perrin’s Columns for The Piedmont Chronicles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWFFDZemHho

Perrin On YouTube

Click HERE

Click HERE

Follow Perrin at Freedom Pepper

The Best Survival Ideas on the Web

NEW BOOK COMING SOON

The best of my TPC columns, so far. Available around Jan 2019 at Amazon, B&N, and better booksellers.

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Top Posts & Pages

  • Facebook = Digital Gangsters
  • #Hot Pants Matter
  • The Decline of the American IQ
  • At First Glance
  • Perrin's FY 2018 Federal Budget Review and Counter Analysis
  • Little Ditty Bout Debt and Decline
  • A Big Red "F": The Nation's Report Card

Archives

  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012
Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy