Of Epstein’s little black book. Now, might this be some of the terroristic hate mini-Mike was crying about the other day?
A dark horse and a midget walk into a primary…
Bloomberg considers certain
Arkancide adding Hillary as his running mate.
Mike Bloomberg is considering making Hillary Clinton his running mate, a source close to his campaign has told Drudge Report.
Polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force to take on Trump in the race for the White House, the source said.
Former New York City Mayor and Democratic candidate Bloomberg is said to be considering even changing his official residence from New York to Colorado or Florida – where he also has homes – because the electoral college makes it difficult for US president and vice-president to reside in the same state.
While this surely raises his odds of ending up like Vince Foster, it only increases his chances of beating Trump from 0% to 0%.
Little liar Gloomberg is telling short tale while pandering his way toward nomination defeat next year.
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that the United States needs “an awful lot more immigrants rather than less.”
On his second day campaigning for the Democratic nomination, the former New York City mayor contrasted his views on immigration with President Donald Trump’s restrictive policies and laid out a vision of a multicultural society enriched by immigrants.
Doomberg, ironically, proved just why immigrants are too dangerous to tolerate. And, what is the obsession with the population? Beyond political control, I mean. Birth-rates and invasion and that’s it. If the birthrate is at an all-time low, then why does the total population keep rising?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed the findings of their 2018 study on Wednesday.
There were 3,791,712 registered births in the US, a figure lower than the amount of babies needed to replenish the population.
TWO KIDS PER WOMAN
The total fertility rate, which is the amount of offspring a hypothetical woman will have in her lifetime, had also dropped.
For 2018, that figure stood at 1,729.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, which marked four years where the rate had decreased.
In order to keep the current population stable, there would need to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women based on that metric.
This means that each woman in the US would need to have at least two children, if not more.
The CDC? Are kids a disease now? I suppose so, so long as they’re white. What a shame that there’s no way to produce new Americans. Maybe Shitberg has a point…
1911, ADA, Alabama, America, American Rifleman, Assad, Augusta, bankers, Barak Obama, basketball, Ben Bernanke, Bieber, Bin Laden, Bush, Christians, CIA, Clinto, Congress, crime, Cyprus, D.C., Dianne Feinstein, disability, Disney, drugs, EBT, fat, Federal Reserve, Fire Hat, gays, global warming, God, hell, Hussein, Janet Napolitano, Jim Carrey, Kate Upton, Lindsey Vonn, Lohan, marriage, Masters, McCain, Mexico, Michael Bloomberg, Michael Moore, Monsanto, New World Order, obsesity, Oscar the Grouch, Piers Morgan, politicians, Powell, raoches, rats, Rothschilds, Schumer, Sesame Street, Sheen, snakes, SSI, Steve Martin, taxes, theft, Thomas Jefferson, War, Youtube
You have answers, I have questions. You have questions, I have comments. In the tradition of Fire Hat…
I want to give my white man’s perspective on basketball: “Who cares?”
Kim Jong Unbalenced has kindly offered to bomb D.C. We should get him a fruit basket or something.
The more television channels, the less shows worth watching.
If not for politicians and banksters, who would rats and roaches look down upon?
Since they can drive and talk on the phone at the same time, why can’t people drive and use turn signals concurrently?
Aside from the Brady Center and mental inpatients, does Piers Morgan have an audience?
Imperial and Georgian forces have raided the property of the FPSRussia guy – don’t post yourself with guns on Youtube.
When are the next parliamentary elections in Cyprus?
Why are banks still standing in Cyprus?
Considering that almost every town has a thief and maybe a murderer, why do we still need governments?
Given that almost every town has that thief, why do we still need banks?
Any bets on when Justin Bieber goes John Belushi on us?
Why can’t Augusta have the Masters Tournament 51 weeks out of the year? Seems to work for baseball, basketball, and Nascar.
Why are gay people upset about laws banning them from committing marriage?
Women take bicycles fishing? Huh?
If a law falls in the forest and there’s no judge around to opine, can law professors still think?
How come a grocery store in a neighborhood where everyone has EBT cards can’t make it financially?
Why do those EBT cardees need food handouts?
When the above-grocery store in Augusta, GA went out of business, the Sheriff refused to give the excess food to the gathered crowd of hundreds. He said they were too fat as is. The new Sheriff is an observant man.
Scientists predict 104% of the American population will be morbidly obese by 2022.
Why do “Christians” lust for war, real or imaginary?
Lindsay Lohan is starring in Charlie Sheen’s TV show; local liquor stores report record sales.
How does unemployment rise in an economic recovery?
If he government wants to ban guns, why don’t they ditch theirs and lead by example?
By around 2020 the ADA will have to be revised to mandate each parking lot set aside one or spaces in the rear for “normals.”
Ben Bernanke has secured a patent on a warp-drive powered printing press; rejoice!
If alive today Thomas Jefferson would hang his head, sail back to England, and beg the Queen for clemency.
Officials in Anniston, Alabama announced yesterday that the last factory in America closed.
I applaud Barack Obama’s vacation schedule; he works hard and needs a tan.
If Lindsey Graham joined the Communist Party, would anyone notice?
Are there any brown people left on earth the U.S. has not bombed lately?
Is not being disabled a disability these days?
After more than forty seasons, Sesame Street is set to replace Oscar the Grouch with Michael Bloomberg after the good mayor retires.
Steve Martin has agreed to reprise the role of The Jerk next year in a tribute to Bloomberg.
How does one go about getting the job of body painting Kate Upton?
In an effort to allow banks to raid more of your cash, Congress has introduced legislation to place mattresses and mason jars under Federal Reserve control.
Is there any truth to the rumor Dianne Feinstein will play the Wicked Which of the West’s ugly, controlling grandmother?
Why do we have Cuban baseball players but not cigars?
Next year when everyone in America becomes unemployed or disabled, who will pay the taxes?
Several illegal immigrants went home disgusted with America this week, after climbing over the fence only to discover the hideous presence of Chuck Schumer and John McCain. What has the world come to?
Angry armed citizens arrested the corrupt local police in a Mexican town this week; Americans are weak, fat, and stupid.
If Patrick Henry were alive today, he would kick McCain and Schumer in their heads before jumping the fence to Mexico.
Now we know why Lindsey Vonn winces when the idiots scream, “Get in the hole!”
If the 1911 had never been invented, what would American Rifleman report on?
Pharmaceutical companies make money drugging our children; school shootings are their advertisements.
Reading, Riting, and Ritalin, why can’t Johnny aim without the jitters?
All roaches, flies, and spiders have departed the Capital in protest over adverse working conditions.
If global warming is measured by pollen, we’re screwed.
Monsanto owns your CongressCritter, b***hes!
Poor Janet Napolitano has never been on a date.
God called and stated he would rescind his promise against future floods if another Bush runs for President.
Clinton made Bush look good; Bush made Clinton look good; Obama made Bush look good. Another Bush followed by another Clinton followed by a catastrophic asteroid collision will made Washington look good.
Does Bashar al-Assad shop at Saddam Hussein’s old yellow cake retailer? Mr. Powell?
Marine biologists have discovered bankers are all descended from a common sea slug, the Thievish Filtha-sluggis.
Jesse Jackson is upset, again.
The Capital One Vikings have all filed successfully for SSI.
Jim Carrey needs an enema.
Michael Moore was ticketed from breaking a truck-stop scale during his last weigh-in.
Does Osama Bin Laden’s family receive his CIA retirement?
Which childhood classic will Disney destroy next?
Pope Francis will be in Washington next week to wash the feet of more felons.
All six adult American men who don’t play video games met for the first time at a Knoxville Waffle House last week; we had a good time.
Following their recent success in finding the “God particle,” physicists are proud to announce they have discovered the “Satan particle;” it will be formally known as the “Bush,” “Clinton,” or “Feinstein” particle once the dust settles.
The Rothschilds endorsed the American slob as the State Bird of the New World Order.
What’s the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead politician in the road? The politician still wants your money.
The correct greeting for a bankster or politician is, “Go BACK to hell!”
16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II
This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/. One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.
Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.
(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book. Google Images.)
As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.
As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution. By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too). I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.
Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice. After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases. Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world. The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment. I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution. The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law. If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law. If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.
Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!: Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes. Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat. She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg. Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city. Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size. Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly. Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity. This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.
Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case. If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires. While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence).
These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points. The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world. Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants. As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause. All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything. Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.
Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress. Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism. In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women. This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies. While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected. However, the right, like all rights, has limits. The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision. Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life. Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn. However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision. This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.
I do not roundly condemn “activists.” Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights. The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example. Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone. It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only.
I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives. These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools. In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.
The General Welfare Clause
This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people. It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.
The Commerce Clause
Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3. Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories. The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread. While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast. The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress. Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats. I know this from personal experience.
The Necessary and Proper Clause
This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18. It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers. The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities. Turns out they were right. In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything. It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.
“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Frequently, it is the first. There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors. Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.). This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks. In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose. However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights. History indicates that “emergencies” never go away. For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany. We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII. History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….” Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing. Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance. The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors. The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will. The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax. See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012. Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god. Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).
A Few Rights
Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights. I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application. For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.” It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny. I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.
Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment. There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject. The First is worthy of great attention. However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts. Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts.
Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review. However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people. For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process. The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”
The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law. It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect. In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist. I found this hard to believe. Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations. I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering. Join me if you will.
If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases. Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.
Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution. Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People. With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society. I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.” I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet. Someday…