Just Who Are The Animals Here?

24 Sunday Jan 2016

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

Tags

Animals, Augusta, due process, Georgia, God, government, law, Masters, stupidity, The People, voting

Congress, the Georgia General Assembly, and the United Nations have some competition in the running for world’s dumbest governing body. Meet the city commission of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia: ten utter morons and one near-useless mayor. It is alleged that one member has a triple digit IQ but no one is certain which it is. The rumor could be a hoax.

The commission itself could be considered a hoax, and a very funny one, but for its propensity for unending dastardly deeds. Ages ago Georgia’s second city was governed by an all white good old boys club. Following integration and the introduction of some good old black boys, the body degenerated into a constant racial brouhaha. Now, fully diversified, the group serves no known noble purpose; their actions, mostly petty, serve their own pathetic needs. The public, largely uninterested, is largely ignored. Again, but for brooding evil, this would be an appropriate relationship.

While normally content to lavish themselves with ultra-expensive “working” vacations in foreign resorts (no where better to discuss civic beautification than Hawaii) and looting the city Treasury for free gas (got the card, gotta use it!), they occasionally stumble into darker territory.

They give public roads to private clubs free of charge. They tailor local laws to the desires of private clubs. They subsidize brutality and incompetence negatively impacting the public. They run the taxpayers through the ringer: property taxes maxed out they’ve turned to charging exorbitant charges for rain water, air and sunlight.

Now the fools are coming for the animals. Take your furry friends and run.

The city’s animal control ordinance is due for its first revision since about 1970. Last year you probably noticed all the stray dogs, pigs, and deer running amuck at the Masters Tournament. The problem (real problem, really, for real) shall soon be solved! Sure, they’ll solve it in the most expensive manner possible and with tactics to make the SS giddy, but solve it they will. Only a vote away.

Henceforth all local animals will be registered with the government. All for the low, low price of $50 per animal, per year – forever. All funds will go directly to the Ritz Carlton Maui and BP.

There use to be high regard for things like privacy, private property, freedom from prohibition against unlawful taking and similar atrocities. Today the Supreme Court would likely declare this a perfectly normal tax and nothing more.

Worse, there shall be mandatory microchipping of all critters in the county. While the benefits (name one) of the mark of the beast are debatable, the cost is not. Just another tax though – and you did vote these bastards into office. Time to pay the crack pippers.

Many municipalities nationwide are enacting and enforcing the chip laws. As the Chronicle astutely notes: “Down at Animal Control, it seems to be less about the animal than the control.” They’re coming for your kids next, by the way. Then, you. 666! 666!

Worst of all the new law would give law enforcement new and Draconian powers. Any animal found outside without a collar and tag is subject to being detained and hauled into animal court. There, Dr. Euthanasia will dispense with rapid and final “justice.” One would think, with the advent of the microchip, tags would be irrelevant. The dog catcher could carry a scanner. “Beep, boop! Fido belongs to Mrs. Smith just down the street.” This isn’t about thinking or else it would not be debated by the retards at the commission.

Pets on your private property or in your home are not safe either. The new law would allow authorities to enter private property without cause, without notice, and without a warrant or any pretense of Due Process. Take that, Fourth Amendment!

I call “Bullshit!” on this whole scheme. I like animals and I live in the Augusta area. There is no problem with two, four, six or eight legged varmits that can’t be addressed by current law or, better yet, by common sense. A dangerous dog or bull, loose and menacing, may be dealt with as needed. And, these instances are exceedingly rare. They do not require a $50 license fee to solve – a ten cent bullet will work every time.

You know where I stand against government and its hellish affairs. I’ll dispense with my usual rhetoric. I speak for the voiceless animals – not one of whom is guilty of voting for mindless savages.

Over the years I’ve observed a vast host of animals in urban settings, to include: dogs, cats, mice, frogs, snakes, birds, lizards, spiders, bees, ants, squirrels, beavers, turtles, aligators, possums, raccoons, rabbits, foxes, coyotes, deer, horses, fish, and cows. Not one I ever saw caused any trouble.

These are God’s creatures! Many and most roamed freely long before people ever visited Georgia. Leave them the hell alone!

If anyone must be euthanized, then I gladly offer up the members of the Augusta commission. Bastards!

a9cf6473ca327409108ab02d15cc06b0

Not a criminal! Google.

12593950 Criminals. Augusta Chronicle.

Empty Seat, Empty Words

13 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Empty Seat, Empty Words

Tags

"Refugees", America, Congress, Constitution, crime, economy, government, law, lies, Nikki Haley, Obama, Old Republic, Republicans, Second Amendment, state of the union, terrorism, Washington

Last night Hussein Obama gave what (Lord be praised) should be his final state of the Empire address to Congress. Per my usual abstinence I did not watch the presentation. I stopped watching during the stuttering, mumbling days of W. It’s a decision I have never regretted. There is always a news story the next day with highlights (lowlights?) or even transcripts if needed.

This morning I reviewed the New York Times version of the event. Nothing really jumped out at me as particularly important or impressive. It seemed like the ordinary list of hollow platitudes and promises mixed with Obama’s usual “look at me” self-lauding. It was harmless if pointless. Nothing truthful was told about the state of the Union as required by the Constitution. This is most forgivable as the Constitution was long since abandoned by Washington. Further, the remains of the Old Republic are not worth reporting on anymore.

Presidents often play stupid tricks at these spectacles both to build applause among the gathered rodent corpses and to wow the ever-gullible television audiences. Obama’s trick last night involved the gallery seating on either side of the First Lady. To her right was an empty seat which somehow represented the victims of gun crimes. This meaningless charade built on Hussein Obama’s last speech about whittling away the Second Amendment. Maybe the seat was reserved for an actual victim whom could not be lured into the show. Something last-minute perhaps?

Of course, there was no mention of the millions of lives saved guns. The space required could have only been found on the National Mall. These folks are not victims nor would any of them wasted their time attending. I declare the whole massive empty space outside the Capital represented the beneficiaries of gun violence.

Empty seat at a hollow show. STEPHEN CROWLEY / THE NEW YORK TIMES.

One of the cats seated with Michelle was a Syrian “refugee” recently added to your tax doll. Hussein Obama bragged of his handling of the “refugee” crisis and related terrorism and foreign policy issues. There has been no confirmation as to whether the “refugee” in attendance is a known member of ISIS. Following Obama’s gun speech last week, when he declared criminals don’t use stolen guns, an ISIS member/criminal used a stolen gun to attack a police officer in Philadelphia. I doubt Obama took the opportunity to correct his previous statement in light of reality. Reality rarely makes an appearance at these sessions.

When not congratulating himself on his seven years of brilliant success Obama took potshots at the Republicans vying to replace him. Looking into the future, these shots are likely warranted. I won’t watch Obama’s successors but I can imagine their follies and symbolic shenanigans.

The Commoder in Grief also portrayed terrorism abroad and the domestic economy as problems solved. Ignoring Paris, the German new years rapes, the dreadful state of Europe and the Middle East, San Bernardino, Philadelphia, and the dire threats posed by Islamic invaders all across the West, terrorism does indeed seem in decline.

The economy, outside of stocks, bonds, commodities, cash, interest rates, jobs, manufacturing, debt, homelessness, hopelessness, welfare, and all other quantifiable measures, is improving. It’s doing so well one of twenty largest banks in the world this morning announced that 2016 portends a “cataclysmic year” and that investors should “sell everything.” Neither the President, Congress, nor you should be troubled by such miniscule details.

“Mr. Obama sought to pose and answer the four central questions his aides said were driving the debate about America’s future, including how to ensure opportunity for everyone, how to harness technological change, how to keep the country safe, and how to fix the nation’s broken politics.” New York Times. The answers to these questions are each the same: get the government out of the damned way. I doubt that was Obama’s answer as he did not immediately resign while encouraging his fellows to do likewise.

He harped on Republicans to help him finish off the economy by completing his ObamaTrade legislation. I suppose they will given enough time.

One proposal he made actually made sense. As such it will never come to fruition. Perhaps due to a teleprompter malfunction Obama implored Congress to reform America’s criminal “justice” system.

That system is broken to the point of being institutionalized injustice and tyranny. The truly criminal government keeps itself in business by making fake criminals out of its entire population. The Constitution describes three federal crimes, not the three bazillion currently on the books. In a real system of justice the President and his audience would be rounded up and tried for Treason. Again, reality is not suffered in D.C. These problems will not be fixed by the same dastardly fiends that created them.

The rest of the address was more taxes, more spending, more programs and more Obama. If he wants a historical legacy, I just wrote it for him in one sentence.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley delivered the empty GOP retort to Obama’s empty blathering. She said nothing important though, in typical Republican fashion, she did pander to the Likudniks: “We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around…” Perish the thought someone in the American government do anything to be celebrated in America.

Empty, hollow, vapid, useless – another evening with “our” government. State and status aside, the odor of the Union is strong.

Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

09 Saturday Jan 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

Tags

10th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, America, Cicero, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Courts, evil, freedom, government, Greg Abbott, Jonathan the Tortiose, law, States, The People, Washington

About twenty years ago Newt Gingrich and the Republican party foisted upon the people something called “the contact with America.” It was a typical hollow pledge to do great things – cut the budget, reduce debt, make life freer and happier, etc. It was a gimmick and for that purpose only it was a success. I think every single provision failed. In fact, we got the exact opposite – less freedom but more of everything else government.

The masses love a good gimmick. They also have short memories. This makes for good political sport. As carnival goers flock to one rigged, losing game after another so do the people cheerfully fall for a never-ending assortment of grandiose election schemes.

All this leads me to Jonathan the Tortoise. At age 183 this remarkable reptile is the world’s oldest living animal. Over the long-span of his blissful, apple eating life Jonathan has outlasted dozens or scores of Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congresses, Kings, Queens and various other con artists and criminals. Maybe by the time the spry, jolly turtle turns 283 the world will have outgrown the foolishness of the state.

All this leads me, back around from Jonathan, to the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. Greg has proposed the nuclear option of the political gimmick world – a Constitutional Convention.

Actually he has called for a convention of the states which is really the same thing but substitutes idiots in Congress with idiots in state capitals. It’s in Article Five of the old parchment.

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Greg said to a gathering of policy hacks in the Lone Star State. He proposed to restore that rule of law by adding yet more laws. (What’s a little more sand on the beach?)

His proposal itself ran on for 70 pages and outlined a host of new Constitutional Amendments (more laws). Tully once reminded us that more laws mean less justice. Truly, it only ever results in more government. Fuel on the fire and such.

I would happily support, even participate in, a convention if its sole purpose was to abolish the United States. Of course, even that would only buy a few generations of liberty. People like government and heaps of it. Anyway, here’s a look at Greg’s potential amendments and what they would and wouldn’t do. (All following proposals taken from Dallasnews.com; my remarks italicized).

Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. We already have this protection; it just doesn’t work. Congress can only regulate activities affecting interstate commerce which, over the past century, has been defined as anything. Stating something twice does not deter tyranny.

Require Congress to balance its budget. I almost like this one but I imagine there would be no controls on the amount of the budget nor on how the balancing might be achieved. The thieves could always print money or pile on more taxes as necessary and without end. If the current state system must be maintained, then a better limit would be to ban debt, establish a private gold currency, and abolish taxation completely. In other words, and as it once was, Washington would be left to beg the states or the people for funding without guaranteed results.

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state law. These agencies are not allowed under the Constitution in the first place. Better to put an end to them and their Byzantine rules altogether.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Congress has the power to override the Court or even preempt it as is. It just doesn’t use the power. The States gave up their claim on Congress via the 17th Amendment. States would be free to ignore Court decisions but that might endanger their federal funding. They gave up their money with the 16th Amendment. Almost like a plan or something.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. See my answer immediately above. Also, every once in a while the Supreme Court needs to rule on important Constitutional issues, democratic or not. Democracy, mob-rule with a fancy name, should be shunned in civilized places.

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. This might mean repealing 16 and 17 Amendments. It might also mean the exact same as the 10th. The Empire is already so limited on paper, by law. Again, there is no magic in redundancy.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. Proper redress under the existing law is carried out in Congress. On paper, that is. In reality, there is no redress. Given the self-imposed legal interference I noted previously, I do not see the value in shifting venue between the branches. Also, as Greg seems to have an aversion to federal courts, this one seems self-defeating.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation. I think I’ve covered this already. Those states have essentially given up their authority for cheap federal fiat money. It’s called getting what you pay for. Any state is free to override or ignore any act of Congress it finds offensive. However, the cost is generally prohibitive, monetarily speaking. A really offended state is free to leave the union. But, then, there was the long, painful lesson of 1861-1865.

Another thing to consider is the woeful quality of the people who might attend and vote in the convention. The men who debated the Constitution of old may just as well done so eons ago on a planet long destroyed in some celestial cataclysm. People today obtain their worldview from babbling, paid for nitwits on television. Their “representatives” are the most loathsome, self-absorbed, and corrupt rodents to emerge from the political sewer since Roman times. Knowing who these people are there is no knowing what evil they might do given the chance.

As I have repeated here, repeatedly, repeating laws and policies does not make them stick. It just gives the vampire class more to feed on. One hundred years hence some other governor would likely call, again, for the same failed limitations already set forth in the failed Constitution. Einstein and insanity or something similar.

It would be refreshing if this turned out to be an honest effort, misguided as it seems. I judge this a gimmick and unlikely to survive November’s slave suggestion box election. But for my reminder who would remember the GOP’s Contract? At any rate, these conventions move at a snail’s pace. It’s more likely than not the next big change in American law will be the implementation of Sharia.

Long live Jonathan!

Jonathan and friend. Dailymail. I would trust this dinosaur with my government more than any current politician.

Cry Me To The Moon: Obama’s Weak, Insidious Gun Grab

06 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Amercia, communism, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, executive order, firearms, freedom, government, gun control, guns, idiocy, John Boehner, law, Obama, politicians, Putin, Second Amendment, terrorism, The People, tyranny, Washington, weak

As predicted here President Obama yesterday rolled out his “common sense” gun control edict. Edict it was, without any representative pretense. I saw a teary-eyed man surrounded by myrmidons issue a royal proclamation. Since the earliest days of the Old Republic chief executives have crafted executive orders needed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. But, then, there was a distinction. Laws were debated and passed by the legislature nominally accountable to the people. Presidents issued orders concerning either compliance with those laws or with the very few duties existing in Article Two of the Constitution.

Today Congress rams through secret spending boondoggles that no one has read and no one outside of Washington and New York needs or wants. Members of the House and Senate live in their own little world far removed from reality. The current crop of pitiful presidents, of whom Barry is merely the latest, fill in the governing gaps with a series of orders which are in effect law. As with the actual legislation from Congress the executive orders are occasionally reviewed by the corrupt, incompetent courts. More often than not the black-robed sorcerers give deference to the political branches by allowing these fascist decrees to stand.

The Constitution slowly rots under glass. The people slowly rot amid their televisions, sports, fast food, and disability applications. Nothing remains of the old America except for old John Wayne movies and the proliferation of private firearms. At any other time in history this latter relic would be of utmost concern to the hellish legions of political scum.

The Second Amendment has been firmly if inexplicably cemented into the legal and political fabric of the nation. And everyone is armed – heavily. Not that it really matters. The most heavily armed people in the world have proven themselves unwilling or incapable of using their vast potential to fight tyranny. Disarmament is the final plank of the Communist manifesto needed to complete the conquest of the United States. However, by dumbing themselves down and by being fervently preoccupied with perpetual nonsense the people have rendered obsolete this otherwise crucial step. It’s as bizarre as any plot from The Twilight Zone.

Bizarre too was Hussein Obama’s Tuesday performance. I’m confident Barry and his clan of leeches and roaches would love to confiscate all private arms. But, again, he doesn’t have to. The people obviously are madly in love with the government and are willing, nay demanding, of any manner of deprivation.

So it was that the Whitehouse debuted some of the weakest gun control every seen. It was introduced in as weak a fashion possible too.

Obama channeled his inner John Boo-Hoo Boenher while a host of unemployable sycophants looked on in vacuous approval. CNN.

All of this was scripted and predictable. A corrupt politician seizes on a non-issue (gun violence). Grown men and women who should otherwise be at work gather in solemn support. The political rodent cries about the deaths of a few children (tragic, yes) but his tears are hypocritical. The same man uses his military to murder other children while signing legislation funding an industry that murders a million more babies each year. The loyal opposition is neither. The comatose people remain unconcerned and uneducated.

And he cried. Tears. A man cried on television while breaking the law. Cried. George Washington never cried that we know of. Putin does not resort to tears. ISIS must have laughed at this pathetic spectacle. The delivery is one reason I say this program is weak. Another is the minimalist, chipping-away nature of the plan.

Some of Obama’s garbage may be dismissed by the courts or over-ridden by Congress. It all should be. It’s all unconstitutional and illegal. However, I imagine some will remain intact and what survives will serve as precedent and a building block for further incremental infringement. This is the insidious side of the fiat decree. What the rats cannot accomplish by a serious ban of guns they will attempt through a series of small reforms.

The Whitehouse claims: “President Obama has a responsibility to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence.” The Constitution gives the President no such power. No mind. This claim is a lie; none of Obama’s proposals will hinder violence – only freedom.

As part of the lie the President uses some numerical smoke and mirrors:

Gun Violence in America: By the Numbers

MORE THAN 4 MILLION
Number of American victims of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun in the last decade

MORE THAN 30,000
Number of gun deaths in America each year

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of children under 18 killed by firearms over the last decade

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of Americans who commit suicide with a firearm each year

466
Number of law enforcement officers shot and killed by felons over the last decade

3
Number of days after which a gun dealer can sell a gun to an individual if a background check is not yet complete

Whitehouse lies.

So, based on these one-sided figures, Emperor Obama is taking action! Notice the use of numbers over a decade rather than by the year? Notice the lack of data on lives saved by guns? It’s over a million a year or 10 million each decade. These numbers are equivalent to the number of children killed in abortion clinics or the number of violent jihadis Obama would like to import. Of course presenting all sides of the equation wouldn’t help the agenda. All lies, remember, in order to curtail freedom. Gun control does nothing to stop gun crimes. The government wants more crime so as to justify its continued existence.

If they wanted less crime and less violence they would concentrate on enforcing laws against real crimes (murder, rape, etc.) and not on plants, tax form irregularities and speed limits. They would stop stirring up terrorists only to ship as many as possible to America. They would stop murdering babies. That’s not the plan. The plan is to further burden innocent people.

Here’s how it may work out for us. Currently all gun sales by federally licensed dealers are subject to regulation and background checks. All of this violates the Second Amendment but more on that another day. Private gun sales are subject to nothing. That’s about to change. Obama is intent on unilaterally redefining what or who constitutes a dealer requiring a license and copious red tape. Want to sell or give a gun to your son, friend, or the dude on Craigslist? Just one gun? Congratulations! You are now a gun dealer! Ready your checkbook. The licensing process ain’t cheap.

Obama will also dramatically expand the ranks of those prohibited from owning guns via two steps. First, Obama and his cronies will order doctors to violate federal law (HIPPA) by reporting “mentally ill” patients to the FBI. The definition of mental illness will be left to unelected and unaccountable beaurocrats. Abuse will be rank. The FBI and the ATF will swoop in to seize weapons from those deemed mentally defective.

Certain Social Security recipients will also be stripped of their rights and their guns. The theory is that those deemed incapable of making certain financial decisions should also be deemed too dangerous to own guns. Who does the deeming and under what circumstances remains to be seen. This will address the epidemic of nursing home shootings you’ve heard nothing about.

Current illegal law restricts those convicted of felonies or adjudicated by a court to be psychotic. These restrictions are based on laws passed by the legislature not by one sick, crying man’s order. I say they are illegal because they are. They came about in the 20th Century in violation of the Second Amendment. If someone is so dangerous due to illness, defect, or criminal predilection, then they should be locked away somewhere. If released into free society, they should be free.

As problematic as the current law is at least it was passed through the legal process. It also requires Due Process. A felon must be convicted. The deranged must be legally declared so. It requires a trial or a hearing. It depends on legal representation, confrontation of witnesses, evidence, and an appeals process. Law and order stuff. The coming program will be based on whim.

Some pencil pusher will decide who is unfit to bear arms based on whatever factors the pusher sees as appropriate. Stormtroopers will be dispatched to forcibly disarm the victims or kill them if they “resist.” Should a victim survive it will be incumbent upon him to appeal the beaurocrat’s decision. He will bear all the costs and burdens of proof in this uphill battle. He, presumed innocent until proven guilty, will have to prove his innocence to a degenerate system.

This will all start small and slow. Tyranny usually does so begin. Some provisions may fall in court. However, if these reforms are tolerated, more and more will follow. Beaurocratic expansion is a constant.

Will this be tolerated? The NRA and the State of Texas have already murmured against the plan. Yet, I suspect the majority of our citizens will do nothing because they know nothing. Legal reality interferes with the fun of reality television and other trappings of modern stupidity.

The government and political establishment are counting on you to be complacent. The control freaks on the left will expect your appreciation for being shielded from nothing. The charlatans on the right will expect your votes so they can “fix” things. If placated, both will get what they want and collectively do nothing except more of the same.

A brave few will resist. A few more will cheer what they wrongly perceive as protection from the violent. Most will remain blissfully ignorant. Where do you fall?

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

America, anarchy, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Courts, fantasy, freedom, God, government, law, law school, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, monarchy, Natural Law, politics, republic, rights, States, The People

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

Concealed Carry on Private Property (and Related Issues)

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Amercia, attorneys, concealed carry, Constitution, crime, firearms, freedom, government, gun law, guns, law, militia, Natural Law, NRA, Private property, rights, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, States, terrorism, The People

Americans love guns and with good reason. Every year over a million lives are saved in this country because we are an armed people. We have guns. No one is going to take them from us. Period. The fascist left knows this. The nitwit politicians know this. More common criminals know it. ISIS is going to learn it sooner or later.

In the wake of the ISIS attack in San Bernardino and the brewing Sharia in the Whitehouse the people are buying more guns than ever. This year black Friday was flat except for firearms sales. Broken record after broken record.

People are carrying their guns – everywhere, everyday. If you are a criminal or a terrorist in America, know that hunting season has opened. You will be safer elsewhere.

Daily, it seems to me, I hear more and more of my friends talking about securing a concealed carry permit from their state governments. In Georgia, twenty years ago, one out a hundred citizens had a permit. Now they are more common than driver’s licenses. My mom has one.

I am philosophically opposed to the concept of these permits. What other natural and Constitutional right requires a permission slip? Imagine if they offered or required permits for speech, worship, or freedom from warrantless searches. As a practical matter I have conceded this is one of the state’s games it’s okay to play. Just don’t take it so seriously.

Don’t get too attached either. State after state is beginning to follow Vermont’s lead. They are concerning to me these slips are unnecessary and illegal. It’s called Constitutional carry. Small matters really.

As part of the growing concealed carry discussion I have seen several mentions of certain private establishments that do not welcome armed patrons. Friends on Facebook vow not to support such places. I tend to agree with them.

Buffalo Wild Wings.

A question sometimes posed to me is how much legal weight these business notices carry. The answer is “it depends.” One must consult the law of one’s local jurisdiction.

In Georgia a “no guns allowed” sign is just a sign. It has no legal authority. Every outside door at my local mall has a little picture of a crossed out pistol. Maybe this means long guns only? It doesn’t matter. The worst they can do is ban you from their property. That’s their right as the owner. I can respect it. However, for most men, being banned from a shopping mall is more of a reward than a punishment. The mall I reference is the kind of place I will only enter if I am armed.

There’s a much better, more upscale mall a few hours away in Charlotte. It hosts a fine Cigar shop and fewer thugs. The sign there reminds shoppers not to leave their guns behind in their cars. It is an indirect encouragement to bring them inside.

The law in North Carolina is different too. There signs prohibiting guns on private property do carry legal consequences. A violation of such notice constitutes misdemeanor criminal trespass.

If you carry, you need to know the law. Or, at least, some of it. We have over 23,000 gun laws in the U.S. (all of these serve as no deterrent to criminals and terrorists). Compliance or even comprehension is virtually impossible. Luckily it matters very little.

If you carry concealed and your weapon is well concealed, then no one will know about it. Many public places require passage through metal detectors. Avoid the hassle. Don’t go to these places. The visit usually features payment of a tax or some other unpleasantry anyway.

As for all other locations, just keep the weapon hidden from view and don’t mention it. Everyone will be happy. Mind that if you walk in the grocery store sporting an AR-15 on a tactical sling you may rouse suspicion even if you break no laws. Use a little judgment.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had years ago at an NRA national firearms law seminar (in Charlotte or Pittsburgh I think). These courses feature expect analysis of popular legal issues. There are as exciting as any other law program. Those of us from gun friendly state sir and listen to the horror stories told by colleagues from communist jurisdictions.

That particular time a friend from Massachusetts went on and on about how restrictive are the Bay State’s gun laws. During a recession I approached him laughing. I told him I visit New England regularly and I regularly carry a gun. I informed him I had found a way around all of the restrictive laws. “How?!,” he asked. I smiled and said, “I break them.”

He sputtered and said I could be charged with something. I slapped him on the shoulder and said I knew a good attorney.

Take my car for example. I have been stopped by the police maybe five times in life and not at all in the past ten years. I have never been searched. Any search would have found me heavily armed. But, it never happened. Odds are it never will. Compliance with unjust laws out of fear is a mere phantom. It may be safely ignored as Aquinas suggested.

Note that encourage not the breaking of the valid law. Rather, I adhere strictly to and encourage strict adherence the law of the law. By keeping and bearing armed, the people, the militia, maintain the security of the free state.

Molon labe.

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

"reading the law", ABA, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Watson, America, attorneys, Blackstone, cartel, Cato, Cicero, English common law, government, Greeks, history, law, law school, legal education, legal profession, Lysander Spooner, Rome, Scotland, Solon, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas More

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

Anarchy Is Better Than No Government At All

30 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alan Watson, anarchy, attorneys, chaos, crime, education, evil, freedom, Golden Rule, government, J.R.R. Tolkien, law, legal theory, libertarians, life, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Perrin Lovett, philosophy, political science, politics, UGA

Some years ago I landed in what for me was probably the perfect legal position of employment. I took a job out of law school as a law clerk with a Georgia court. Law clerks review case file, do research and make recommendations to their judges.

My tenure went far beyond the norm. I was afforded the opportunity to wear many hats – each of which fitted me perfectly. I was able to indulge in a great breadth and depth of research with some publication to boot. I was granted the more prestigious title of Staff Attorney. I was also a registered lobbyist, working occasionally in pursuit of projects concerning the judiciary. I even filled in a few times on the bench.

Gravitating naturally towards research and writing and having almost total freedom with my time I began to explore additional opportunities of academic nature. My great interest is in freedom in and out of legal and political systems. I am a theorist. I learned towards some hybrid between legal theory and political philosophy.

The American Bar Association views a J.D. as the equivalent of a PhD for teaching purposes. Most non-law schools hold a different view. I realized I might benefit from another, specialized graduate degree. My choices as I saw them were either a Master of Law or LLM (in law a Master’s degree comes after the doctorate – yes, backwards) or a PhD in poly sci.

My school of choice, based on both reputation and logistics, was the University of Georgia. I had my own strict criteria concerning any entry into these programs.

The only LLM program in the world which interested me was at UGA. It was a directed study of comparative legal theories under the esteemed base master of such philosophy, Dr. Alan Watson. The only PhD I would consider was in political theory or philosophy and, with a concentration in natural law and libertarian/anarchist views.

I demanded, or would have, freedom to explore my own paths. I also included teaching experience as a must have.

My quest never got very far. In short order life dictated I abandon my beloved job and move to a less than desirable locale, practicing less than desirable law. Thus began my professional “downfall.” I ended up, for a brief time, a miserable prosecutor. When I could no longer stand that I entered private practice. Several were my shinning moments but I never regained even a shadow of my former fit and happiness.

Everything happens for a reason. Today, through my writing, I am finally able to pick up where I left off nearly a decade ago. This time, it’s my way on my own by necessity. One, I doubt there is any organized poly sci department in America which would or could house me. That’s fine – times have changed. Today we have YouTube and Udemy. Two, Alan Watson retired and took with him the last vestige of true legal study in the country. Again, I’m on my own. Autodidact or die …

I visited Watson’s office a few times back the. It was my intention to interview him and to be interviewed myself to check compatibility. Per my usual laziness I always showed up unannounced. He was never in. I have never met the man. Perhaps that all was a sign. My little daughter did accompany me on one visit – we had a great time – as such the trip was anything but a waste.

The political science department did receive me for an arranged visit. I toured the facility and we had a good discussion. There was a real chance things might have worked out. Nearly all the faculty members were “liberals” but they seemed to tolerate my extremism rather well. They were open to my ideas of a very loosely structured curriculum and my desire to teach while I worked. They also deemed an attorney in the department a plus. But, as I said, life intervened.

On my afore-mentioned tour I passed many faculty office doors. Many were closed. One was covered in signs and stickers. One of the stickers read: “Anarchy is better than no government at all.” That stuck in my jumbled mind. I think I used it as a title once …

“Anarchy” has various meanings to different people. Of late the term has been used to describe somewhat disruptive protestors of modern socio-economic life. These, to me, appear more like pro-communist or anti-capitalist activists than anything else. Communism is in my mind the polar opposite of anarchy. Then again, I don’t have a monopoly on the word. I suppose this crowd is descended from the mad bomb throwers of yesteryear.

Tolkien, a hero of mine, described his own political philosophy as anarchism. The specifically rejected the bomber disposition; rather, he merely wanted to leave others alone in exchange for equal treatment. This position is as close to my own as any.

Anarchy and “no government” as the door sticker alluded are often used synonymously. However, I don’t think they are one and the same.

Many consider anarchy the equivalent of chaos. To them it is the complete absence of any controls, political or societal, and could only lead to pandemonium. Their views are understandable. For 10,000 years we have been trained to accept some degree of authority outside of ourselves and over us. As society has evolved (or fallen) government and society have also become synonymous. They are not.

One can speak of the American or French or Japanese cultures and traits without the slightest regard for their respective governments. Government did not create the beauty of the natural world. Nor does it bring happiness to small family gatherings. Though they might claim otherwise, politicians had nothing to do with the development of symphony, football, pizza or the quiet enjoyment of an evening cigar.

Anarchy does represent a form of governance. It is one that stems from the natural freedom of association between civilized people. Heavy-handed policies, tactics, and laws are most unnatural. Too many repeat the phrase “government is a necessary evil.” At least they acknowledge the evil but the institution is just that – evil but unnecessary.

Think of anarchy as “Golden Rule” government. Each affords the other respect and vows not to violate the other’s rights and freedoms. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is happiness.

Yes, not all people are civilized. Criminality is a continuing cost of original sin. Somewhere in time someone postulated the state’s main purpose was to protect the good people from the bad. History shows this premise is a total failure. Governments are typically the worst violators of freedom and dignity. They also have the nasty habits of coercing decent people into supporting and paying for their depravity and of criminalizing private attempts to disrupt real criminal activity.

In the absence of such retarded controls the free would be able to – individually or in concert – using their strength and conscious – shame, disrupt, or terminate undesirable elements.

Other things government is supposed to do, but which it can’t do well and did not invent, are better left to private cooperation. Roads, schools and defense are all possible without state intervention. And they all predate government.

Many a good, libertarian man I know have said to me (almost in desperation) “you have to have some government!” No, I do not. I have reached a point where I am content to manage my own affairs and relations. Perhaps they real mean “they have to have government.” They don’t. It’s the conditioning of 10,000 years at work which convinces them otherwise.

Anarchy isn’t better than no government. It is the best government.

Google.

Note: I realized upon finishing this one that it’s as much about me as my pet philosophy. The two seem intertwined. Funny. I don’t care much for structure and tend to live out a life of personal anarchy. I have to admit that for all the foibles it works out pretty well.

Piracy, Counterfeiting, and Treason

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Amercia, anarchy, banksters, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, counterfeiting, Courts, crimes, Federal Reserve, fiat money, freedom, G. Edward Griffen, government, green space chickens, history, inflation, law, Lysander Spooner, money, piracy, President, regulation, Ted Cruz, terrorism, The People, treason, War

This article was featured on The Perrin Lovett Show (with usual amateur production, etc.).

The United States Constitution sets forth a very few enumerated powers for the federal government – 18 to 30 or so, depending on how one reads the text.Several others could be imagined given a certain degree of lucidity. The modern law and political crowd obviously has a very vivid imaginations.

“Our” government now involves itself in literally everything. The pretense of following the Constitution was long ago dropped in favor of a do-all, end-all, all things for all people nanny state. This proves, as Lysander Spooner noted toward the end of the 19th Century, the abject failure of the Constitution. Either it enabled the growth and development of the current system or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way a lost cause for the liberty-minded.

Amongst those few, ancient powers were the prohibition and prosecution of but three specific crimes. Others, a few, could, again, be imagined based on the surrounding text.

Insanity, rather than imagination, best describes the current vast expanse of federal criminal “justice.” Today there are something like 10,000 crimes in the federal code – not all of them are even contained in Title 18, criminal laws. If you have a system where laws escape their designated place, you then have a problem. Worse, the various federal administrative agencies – none of which are found in the Constitution – write a bazillion regulations every year. Many of these carry quasi-criminal penalties.

One gets the idea that any and everything is illegal in America. It is. Possessing a “short” lobster is illegal. Owning a flower banned by a foreign government is illegal. Installing a toilet with a decent sized water tank is illegal.

Few of these laws were enacted to preserve order or to protect the public. Rather, they are intended to promote the government’s over the populace. The people seem to approve. That is, until they find themselves on the wrong side of a federal courtroom.

The average American commits three felonies a day – usually with no intent. Most of these go unprosecuted. Most are never known. Even if a violation is disclosed it is rarely acted upon. It would be impossible to persecute 300 million citizens on a regular basis. Unnecessary too. Prosecution is selective at best. It’s designed to make examples to keep the people in line.

Again, it started out with but three crimes. All the rest were left to the states for enforcement by statute or under our English heritage of common law. While a few cases of the three original varieties occasionally come up, these crimes are almost completely committed, these days by the government itself.

Counterfeiting

“The Congress shall have the power …To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 8.

You, dear reader, must be familiar with the concept of the counterfeiter. It’s some dude in a basement with a press and green ink or a high-end color copier, who manufactures fake twenties for use at the supermarket. This does happen. However, it is dwarfed by the scheme enacted by the government in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act.

That Act created the modern central banking system. One of those thirty or so enumerated powers in the old parchment authorized only Congress to create currency. Said currency was to be based only upon the determined value of gold or silver. It was thus real money, linked to something of intrinsic value.

Via the Act Congress abdicated its authority to a private banking cabal. They were literally given a monopoly to print money. A tenuous link was, then, in place which, on the surface, to the Constitution and the gold standard. The Act’s original language stated the new federal reserve notes could be redeemed at any time for either “lawful currency” or precious metals. It was a sly admission the new notes were something other than lawful. Funny almost but deadly.

This cozy arrangement allows the government an endless supply of debt by which to prop up its income tax scheme and bottomless spending. The tax also, conveniently, came along in 1913. Like a plan or something.

The cabal benefits by being able to loan themselves and their friends an infinite amount of money. You may read all about this process, dubbed the “Mandrake Mechanism” in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island.

The downsides for you are several. First, you endure the loss of Constitutional government – lost to a despicable gang of criminals. Second, you loss buying power to inflation. The more of something there is, the less each individual unit is worth. The more money the Fed prints, the less the money you have buys. Prices rise accordingly. Incomes are always the last to increase; they are perpetually behind the curve.

The Treasury still has the ability to print real money in addition to the Fed’s funny notes. The last time it did so was in the 1960s in a bid to boost currency circulation. The gold link was weakened during the great depression (by a Democrat administration) and severed entirely in the early 70s by Richard Nixon (a Republican) (2 parties, remember…).

Piracy

“The Congress shall have the power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations…” U.S. Const., Art.I, Section 8.

This was a serious issue for the young Republic, being tied to European trade. It’s still an important issue. Ask Captain Phillips about piracy in the 21st Century. Again, however, the actions of the central government eclipse anything done by the hook and parrot set.

The government does not roam the seas looking for vessels to raid. Well, actually, they do. Most of their pillaging and plundering is conducted on land though. Piracy is synonymous with stealing. What doesn’t the government steal?

They get your money through taxes, fees, and insidious inflation. They get your flowers, short lobsters, milk, and produce. They get your arms, legs an lives through their endless wars. They get your children with their mandatory non-education system. They get it all. Pipe up too loudly about this theft and they bring out the guns – piracy. Everything, everywhere, everyday.

Treason

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…” U.S. Const., Art. III, Section 3.

With the exception of the “Civil” war the government does not conduct military operations against itself. Sometimes one wishes the opposite. They do occasionally make war on us: whiskey tax protesters, poor coal miners, displaced veterans, Indians, those of Japanese ancestry, churches, etc.

The real crime they commit – constantly – is giving aid to our enemies. Any enemy they can find so long as the free people suffer. Piracy and counterfeiting (see above) are two good examples. Another example is the absolute infidelity to the limits of the Constitution. Yet again, the majority of the people seem okay with the ridiculous overextension of state authority – so long as they get (or are at least promised) some goodies.

A great example from the news of late is the American warfare/welfare policy concerning Islamic terrorism. The military trots around the globe in search of crazed radicals. Rather than defeating them, they stir the boiling pot. This allows for wholesale spending of the fiat money. It also gives them graft to loot. It also angers the hell out of already dangerous peoples.

As if that isn’t bad enough Washington then imports as many “refugees” to the States as it can locate. Screening be damned, they have a Civilization to wreck.

If any outsider attempted such unimaginable terror, it would be considered an act of war. As is, I view it as an act of Treason. The people may not go along with this one much longer. Not when Paris-style theater and sporting outings become the norm. Not when Sharia law emerges from the 7th century into places like Dearborn and Omaha.

What if anything can be done? I think reform is not an option. Many of my conservative friends want a “return to the Constitution.” That means going back to a document that was roundly ignored the first time. At best, it would reset the clock. This time around there’s no assurance the demise (eternal) would take so long to happen. They could just use history as a blueprint.

Congress, the President (any President), and their friends in beaurocracy and banking are non to eager to give up all that power and fun. The Courts have long since rubber stamped the insanity. It’s all okay because of the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Welfare Clause, or the Santa Clause, or … Just because it just is.

Years ago, during a federal firearms case, I asserted the government’s lack of authority over firearms law as a defense for my client. I moved the court to dismiss the charges for lack of standing. I reminded the judge about Article One enumeration. I waived a copy of the parchment around like a fan. As I spoke there was a stunned silence. Attorneys are not supposed to uphold the law as I did literally.

My motion was denied instantly. My client took a plea deal and voided any chance of an appeal. Any appeal would have failed anyway. Law and order minus the law part.

These are not only my experience. Ted Cruz, whom I’m told is running for President, accessed the White House of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Documents’

Given what we know about government, they probably did. They’re obviously getting away with it. This was a story about immigration too. Perhaps the merging of Treason and counterfeiting.

Speaking to Fox News following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the potential Republican presidential contender said the commander in chief is ignoring federal law.

“One of the things it points out is the president has claimed, rather absurdly, that the basis of his authority is ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ That he’s simply choosing not to prosecute 4.5 million people here illegally,” Cruz told Fox News. “But what the district court concluded, quite rightly, is they’re doing far more than that. The administration is printing work authorizations. It is affirmatively acting in contravention of federal law. Basically, what its doing is counterfeiting immigration documents, because the work authorizations its printing are directly contrary to the text of federal law. It is dangerous when the president ignores federal law.

…

“We’re not going to disregard this federal court ruling,” Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program.

We’re not going to ignore the law, we’ll just not abide by it. To hell with it… That, in a nutshell, is the government. What can be done? Not much right now. For starters though we could all cease to hold the state up on a pedestal of honor. The gallows would be more appropriate. Stop legitimizing the monsters. Shun the long enough and maybe they will go away.

Arrrrrrr. Ye taxes and short lobsters I shall have! Disney.

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, DUI, freedom, Georgia, government, intelligence, law, Natural Law, police, reason, rights, The People, tyranny

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms). Part of this is reasonable. Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects. Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before. I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane. So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof. If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.