Tag Archives: Constitution

Perspective on the Cornsternation and War

13 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Perspective on the Cornsternation and War

Tags

, , ,

It’s been said before, but Gary Barnett says it again very well:

Any conversation about American liberty should begin and end with the false notion that the United States Constitution was written for the purpose of protecting that liberty. The opposite of course is true. This was a document in the form of a contract written by powerful men in secret, in the dark of night, and behind closed and locked doors. It was never signed by any others than those drafting this tyrannical set of rules, and was never agreed to by anyone. It was politically motivated, and used to set up a federal system with extreme centralized power, which had little restriction by any state or individual. This is a worthless document that is revered by many due to what seems to be a brainwashing technique that causes a limitation of intellect.

He even gets the war angle right: “In fact, no war in the history of the U.S. has been warranted, with the possible exception of the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and the South’s defense of its independence.”

Crap! Should I have entitled this one with “Holy” Cornsternation?? Don’t drone me, bro.

 

 

 

Grabblers Discover Consitution Convenient for Once

03 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Grabblers Discover Consitution Convenient for Once

Tags

, , ,

Odd that they neglect it at all other times. At any rate, the House “Intelligence” Committee projection report is out.

Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment

The House’s Constitutional and legal authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is clear, as is the duty of the President to cooperate with the House’s exercise of this authority.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment.” The Framers intended the impeachment power to be an essential check on a President who might engage in corruption or abuse of power. Congress is empowered to conduct oversight and investigations to carry out its authorities under Article I. Because the impeachment power is a core component of the nation’s Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress’ investigative authority is at its zenith during an impeachment inquiry.

So, investigate first, open the impeachment proceedings when? Not that any of this will help the enemy combatants in the slightest in 2020. Ball’s in Nancy’s court now, the voter’s next fall.

Not All It Was Cracked Up to be

16 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Not All It Was Cracked Up to be

Tags

, , , ,

Thomas Dilorenzo states the manifest problems with Muh Constitution and the resulting subverted state.

All governmental power is propped up by an avalanche of myths and superstitions about the alleged benevolence, omniscience, honesty, selflessness, and magnanimity of the state, coupled with critiques if not outright demonization of private property, free market voluntarism, private enterprise, limited government, the rule of law, the free society, and all those who educate about and advance such concepts. Your author once co-authored a book entitled Official Lies: How Washington Misleads Us, about mountains of such myths and superstitions. A case can be made that at the top of the list of statist myths and superstitions is the myth of American nationalism — about the supposed “superiority” of a virtually unlimited, centralized and consolidated government, coupled with the never-ending hatred and demonization of federalism, states’ rights, nullification and secession, and anything else that challenges the notion of the “supremacy” of the central government.

In this regard American “nationalism” has nothing to do with the older concept of a people with a common language and culture, living within the borders of their own nation state. The unique American version of “nationalism” was invented at the time of the founding by a group of conniving, Machiavellian politicians who sought to overthrow the results of the American Revolution – the casting off of the centralized, oppressive, mercantilist/crony capitalist British empire – and adopt the very same system in America – the British empire without the British. There is nothing wrong with a corrupt, tyrannical, mercantilist empire that uses the coercive powers of the state to enrich the ruling class at the expense of the working class, these men said, confident that they would naturally assume the position of the ruling class.

These men were led by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and other “Federalists,” many of who were “defectors” to the cause of liberty – the cause of the American Revolution – as Murray Rothbard wrote in Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic: 1784-1791.

The Americans were a real and distinct People, scattered amongst several coherent Nations. No more. Both have faded away, their legacies perverted into the worship of a nonexistent, but all too real (too powerful) Empire. Thank God it is at its end.

BTW, Rothbard made some good points but he was not one of Us.

Scrapping the Constitution

24 Thursday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Scrapping the Constitution

Tags

, , , ,

A slight majority are in favor – at least as to the First Amendment.

A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.

More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to “reflect the cultural norms of today.” The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results “indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed.”

“The findings are frankly extraordinary,” executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. “Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them.”

Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in “hate speech.” Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution “goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America” and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make “hate speech” a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.

This isn’t at all surprising, considering that the average Amerikan is retarded and trending towards being wicked. But, the joke is on these fools (and those “conservatives” who babble about an Article 5 Con-Con): that Constitution thing was shredded in 1861. All this poll indicates is that the majority who leave an embarrassing epitaph.

Not Sure How This is a Setback

27 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Not Sure How This is a Setback

Tags

, , , ,

But the Nine (five of them) ruled that the administration cannot ask certain Census questions about citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.

The justices – in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in the majority and writing the ruling – upheld part of a federal judge’s ruling barring the question in a victory for a group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations that had challenged the plan.

Opponents of the question have called it a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the population count.

As part of the ruling issued on the last day of the court’s current term, the justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department for it to decide how to proceed. But the clock is ticking, as census forms have to be printed in the coming months.

On the issue of the Census: as if it still matters, and the Supremes did pay it some lip service, the Old Parchment authorizes a headcount ONLY. No other questions beyond, “How many of y’all live here?’ And, as to Trump, what difference does it make? He’s not building a wall, deporting anyone, or even defending the border. Moot.

Ron Paul on the Three Crimes

21 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Ron Paul on the Three Crimes

Tags

, , , , ,

Delineated in the Constitution: piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. VAWA is, as Dr. Paul notes, utterly illegal (as are most of the Empire’s “laws”).

Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.

Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.

Not that the Constitution matters, at all, anymore. But, where have we read about these three “real” crimes before?

Facebook’s Constitutional Convention

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Facebook’s Constitutional Convention

Tags

, ,

To all the libertarians and conservatives, who from time to time make mention of an Con-Con, please have a gander at what Farcebook is doing:

All that said, serious concerns remain. For example, how might a 40 person board adequately represent the concerns of the thousands of groups across the globe? How might a set of “universal” rules address the significant disparities in belief and practice by the billions of people who use or will soon use the platform? How might a company firmly committed to American ideals not end up exporting those ideals, or enforcing such social values over and against smaller states? It’s a dizzying miasma of problems for which solutions are not merely difficult to find, but perhaps impossible.

That difficulty seems inherent to what Facebook is actually doing: in essence, writing a constitution for the global moderation of speech. That it is doing so at all is a recognition of what is at stake on its platform. Yet, sitting and listening to Facebook dutifully receive and genuinely listen to feedback, the absurdity of the situation was also hard to ignore. Here was a private company with historically unprecedented reach trying its best to do the right thing, in which the “right thing” was to find the right way to govern speech on the world’s largest democratic platform. It is indicative of the fact that the company is a kind of supra-state unto itself, significantly more powerful than most countries across the globe, and with enormous influence.

This is what you might reasonably expect, regarding Article Five: a group of anonymous, SJW control freaks trying to impose “American values” – what those are, outside of usury, sodomy, and obesity, isn’t clear – on everyone, everywhere, under every circumstance.

Get off social media. Get off the Parchment.

Or, Maybe It Worked Too Well

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

I saw this story and sat on it for most of the week.

Elections provide the bread-and-circuses staged drama that is passed off as democracy.

Despite the anything-goes quality of American culture, one thing remains verboten to say publicly: the U.S. Constitution has failed. The reason why this painfully obvious fact cannot be discussed publicly is that it gives the lie to the legitimacy of the entire status quo.

The Constitution was intended to limit 1) the power of government over the citizenry 2) the power of each branch of government and 3) the power of political/financial elites over the government and the citizenry, as the Founders recognized the intrinsic risks of an all-powerful state, an all-powerful state dominated by one branch of government and the risks of a financial elite corrupting the state to serve their interests above those of the citizenry.

The Constitution has failed to place limits on the power of government, on the emergence of unaccountable states-within-a-state agencies and on the political power of financial elites.

I tend to agree with the whole article. But… The primary purpose of the Constitution was to create a strong central government. That it certainly did. A success?

Judge K Sides With Court Liberals, Abortion Mafia; Loser States Keep Losing

13 Thursday Dec 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Judge K Sides With Court Liberals, Abortion Mafia; Loser States Keep Losing

Tags

, , , , , ,

This ruling (nonruling, really) is though not necessarily an endorsement of the rehashed Nazi eugenics part of the mafia’s work. The case involved looted money being spent on other “healthcare.” Louisianna and Kansas objected in vain.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end their public funding to women’s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood through the Medicaid program, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh among the justices who rebuffed the states.

The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented Louisiana and Kansas from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates. The case was one of a number of disputes working their way up to the Supreme Court over the legality of state-imposed restrictions involving abortion.

Three conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision by the nine-member conservative-majority court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.

At least four justices must vote to grant review for the court to hear an appeal. Along with the four liberal justices, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts – the court’s two other conservative justices – opposed taking up the matter.

Yet another reason why, unlike the factory lawyers of Amerika, I pay no attention to the Supreme Court – or to governments generally. It’s pointless.

I don’t fault Kavanaugh or Cold Water Roberts, here. The blame rests on the two bitching States, as, over 100 years ago, both of them gleefully voted to give away their citizens’ money and their own Senatorial political power to Washington. Kind of serves them right.

Supreme Court Offers Glimmer of Eighth Amendment Hope

29 Thursday Nov 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Just the slightest glimmer. I’m not as excited as the author of this story about a wronged dope dealer:

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds.

Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose.

The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.

“Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.

Justice Stephen Breyer said under Fisher’s reading police could take the car of a driver caught going 5 mph (8 kph) above the speed limit.

“Anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes or special Ferrari, or even jalopy,” Breyer said.

Fisher agreed.

It was unclear whether the justices also would rule to give Timbs his Land Rover back or allow Indiana courts to decide that issue. Some justices seemed willing to take that additional step.

“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today … many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Yes, looking at all forfeitures occurring today, there is a huge problem. Thank you, wise Latina woman. ‘Cold Water’ Roberts was along with … cold water though, in a way, he might be right. But the problems are so many with these issues.

First, forget the anti-incorporation argument, libertarians. It’s as settled a matter as the fate of the nation. They will formally allow application of the 8th, through the 14th, to and against the States.

Second, as always, hard cases make bad law. No one likes a dope dealer. And there are 10,000 more noble poster children available. On the other hand, why is selling dope a crime (okay to be libertarian, here, still)?

Third, while the excessive fines per se or construed are an important issue in prosecuted criminal cases, the worse issue is the outright theft via “civil” forfeiture. They literally take your stuff – without even a solid accusation of wrongdoing – and keep it barring the jumping of many flaming hoops. The States, most of them, make a mint of this theft, the only criminal activity being committed by the government.

Fourth, it’s not just the States. Uncle Sucker is as guilty as any. Few raise any alarm and many (don’t let the door hit you, Sessions) rabidly defend the practice.

However the Court rules in Timbs, it will be some little good. Unfortunately, a lot of good is needed. We may never fully see it.

Take what you can get, freedom lovers. Take a hike, government thieves.