Tag Archives: Constitution

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.

Two Kinds of Gun Control Not Working: A Veteran Snaps Before Veterans Day

09 Friday Nov 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

A Marine combat vet shot and killed 12 patrons at a California bar.

Terrified patrons hurled barstools through windows to escape or threw their bodies protectively on top of friends as a Marine combat veteran killed 12 people at a country music bar in an attack that added Thousand Oaks to the tragic roster of American cities traumatized by mass shootings.

Dressed all in black with his hood pulled up, the gunman apparently took his own life as scores of police converged on the Borderline Bar & Grill in Southern California.

The motive for the rampage late Wednesday night was under investigation.

The killer , Ian David Long, 28, was a former machine gunner and Afghanistan war veteran who was interviewed by police at his home last spring after an episode of agitated behavior that authorities were told might be post-traumatic stress disorder.

Kind number one: Constitutional gun control not applied. The Founders were rightly wary of a standing army. They were also adamantly against the idea of foreign adventures. When you have those things, then you have perpetual military conflict in far-flung places like Afghanistan. You get amped up young Marines with PTSD. When said men come home from war, they tend to bring bits of war home with them. If the Founders’s controls were allowed to work again, we’d see less of this.

Kind number two: predictable failure of positive gun control. The shooter used an extended magazine in his Glock 21, in violation of California law. If this sort of ban ever worked, then this shooting could not have happened.

Gavin Newsome, you dumbass, it’s not a gun culture; it’s a big government culture.

Lessons not learned.

Strange but True, Barring MAGA, All Bets are Off

12 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Fake News “Resistance” now, after decades of atrophy, seeks to protect the Constitution. Or something. Whatever it is, they’re aiming to protect against The Trump. Oddly, said Trump is the last vestige of hope for possibly restoring any semblance of Constitutional order. If he fails, then it’s over and we might as well let it go. “It” being the old Republic, now more of memory than an institution.

Trump. Trump. Trump. Russia. Russia. Russia. Fake news, impeachment, and indictment.

My old friend, Ken Starr says a sitting President can, in fact, be indicted for crimes.

“I think the president can be indicted,” said Starr, who led the investigation into former President Bill Clinton‘s sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky. “But that is not the position of the Justice Department traditionally.”

“The basic point is we do not have an authoritative resolution on the issue,” he said, noting it “cannot happen, as I see it, under Justice Department policy that’s enforceable on [Special Counsel] Bob Mueller.”

“No one is above the law,” he said. “And so in my judgment the president can in fact be indicted.”

I respect my friend’s learned judgment – as to his theory. But he seems a little caught up in the past. We are in a new and different place, legally. He’s probably correct – in theory – the president could be indicted.

However, a sitting president could now use (“legally”) something like the following to preempt any criminal proceeding:

pic_giant_050914_SM_Hellfire-Boko-Haram-3

Paper indictments do not stop AGM-114’s. NRO.

Do you like the new legal/political landscape? You know, if we’re honest, you voted yourselves into this imperial place. Pleased? If not, then say five “Hail Constitutions,” go forth, and vote no more, my children.

That, or hope Trump has a cool head and an iron constitution (not one of paper). Trust the plan?

Pavlov’s Bell Stimulates a Response

07 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Pavlov’s Bell Stimulates a Response

Tags

, , , , , ,

Look for the 25th Movement to go about as far as Impeachment.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she believes it’s time for White House officials to invoke the 25th Amendment and begin the process of removing President Trump from office.

The comments come one day after a blistering op-ed published in The New York Times by an anonymous senior administration official that blasted Trump as amoral and “anti-democratic” and said staffers must constantly rebut the president’s “misguided impulses” and “worst inclinations.”

“If senior administration officials think the president of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment,” Warren told CNN.
“The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the vice president and senior officials think the president can’t do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the president — take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds. … Every one of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It’s time for them to do their job,” she added.

The author of the Times op-ed said the idea of removing Trump from office had already been floated by his top aides.

Fake news begets fake crisis? In the 1% off chance this moves forward, watch out. It has no chance of success. However, if played out, it could easily precipitate something hot, something we haven’t seen in 153 years.

Nuts.

That and slightly more in today’s PNW:

P/YT.