Tag Archives: Natural Law

Natural Law

23 Monday Jul 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Ninety-Nine percent of lawyers in the United States graduate from law school and practice their profession without much if any consideration of the ultimate underpinnings of the laws, regulations, and processes with which they work. I mean something deeper and more eternal that a mere constitution or the tradition of Anglo-American law. This lack of knowledge is not necessarily their fault. Law schools rarely teach or even mention said underpinnings. Legislatures, executive officers, and courts now operate without the slightest acknowledgment of that from whence they derive their just authority. Most citizens seemed confused about the nature and base concepts of law, rights, and justice generally. This is all forgivable to a fault (especially for the lay audience). Let me tell you briefly about where “law” comes from.

…

Natural Law

Faithful Execution: Trump, The Presidency, And The Constitution

25 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Barring a fluke in next month’s presidential election (the real one), Donald Trump will assume office in January. Many are still upset following the show election this month. I’d be upset if I were Trump. The man is walking into a 240-year-old mess.

Lawrence Vance offered a little advice to Donald on what NOT to do once he’s in office. He begins with the Constitutional duties and powers of a president:

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That’s from Article II of the Constitution. That’s all the president has to do. Really, if we had honest government, that would be all he could do. We do not, so the executive has expanded its reach far and wide.

I’ll pay attention to the second to last part of the foregoing, faithfully executing the laws. That’s one of the areas where real Constitutional law and general governance that gets murky. To begin with, there are way too many federal laws to consider executing. Most have no fidelity to or grounding it the Constitution (see Article I). People have either forgotten the place of the laws or they have accepted dictatorial rule from Washington. The result is the same either way.

Trump could begin to turn things around, to reverse a little of the statism, to “make America great again”. He could do this, partially, by ignoring (not executing) illegal laws, laws not based on explicit Constitutional authority.

article2

Foundation Truths.

Vance alludes to that concept in his second to last “don’t”: “Don’t enforce unjust federal laws.” Saint Thomas Aquinas reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all. Federal laws, to be positively just, must accord with the limits of the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, is just to the extent it is in harmony with Natural Law.

There hasn’t been a lot of harmony of late – natural, positive, or otherwise. Trump can change that if he faithfully executes the laws, if he executes the laws that are faithful to the Constitution.

This is asking or hoping for a lot. Praying for an impossibility perhaps. Time will tell.

Ronald Reagan and FOPA: Myth vs. Reality

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatives tend to lionize anyone associated with their ideology. Fewer politicians have been more ingrained in conservative mythology than Ronald Wilson Reagan. Rush Limbaugh explained:

He was optimistic and happy. He was infectious. He dared to embrace big ideas. He dared to do big things to overcome huge obstacles in the midst of all kinds of experts telling him it couldn’t be done, in the midst of all kinds of criticism, in the midst of all kinds of personal insults.

…

He rejected Washington elitism and connected directly with the American people who adored him. He didn’t need the press. He didn’t need the press to spin what he was or what he said. He had the ability to connect individually with each American who saw him. That is an incredible — I don’t even want to say “talent.” It’s a characteristic that so few Americans have, so few people have, but he was able to do it. He brought confidence; he brought vigor, and he brought humility to the presidency, which had been missing for years, and this profoundly upset his political and media adversaries to no end, and Reagan enjoyed that. Ronald Reagan rejected socialism; he rejected big government. He insisted on returning as much government back to the people as was possible.

Some of this is certainly true. On the surface Reagan seemed like a true American President in the most realistic and patriotic ways. Compared to his two immediate predecessors he seemed like one of the Founders returned to save the day. Compared to the last two occupiers of the Whitehouse it would almost seem that Reagan came down from Olympus. It is understandable why so many cite him their favorite president of all time or call him the greatest conservative. However, as sometimes happens, the facts get in the way.

Reagan cut tax rates but he also increased taxes – 11 times during his Presidency. On his watch the federal debt tripled. Bush (43) was only able to double the debt, Obama being on a similar trajectory. Amateurs. Reagan grew the government, both in terms of spending and in overall scope. Reagan, while opposing Soviet intervention throughout the world, engaged in extreme levels of foreign meddling, some (like the Taliban) with lasting consequences.

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. His law was sold to the public as a crackdown on immigration but only deepened the problem for future generations. He also successfully sold gun control under the guise of firearms protection. Reagan was a gun grabber.

I was reminded of this when I saw a pro-Reagan/pro-gun, “conservative ” meme posted on Facebook:

Conservatives Today

On March 30, 1981 John Hinkley Jr. shot Reagan outside the Washington Hilton with a .22LR revolver. The President made a full recovery. Press Secretary James Brady was not as lucky, being paralyzed by a head shot. Brady and his wife Sarah founded the Brady Campaign against guns. As Reagan did not immediately react by joining with the Bradys many believe him a full proponent of gun rights – thus, the above meme.

Conservative forget that after leaving office Reagan supported the Brady Bill: “Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special — a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol — purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.” Ronald Reagan, Why I’m For the Brady Bill, New York Times, March 29, 1991.

The now-expired/obsolete Bill did little to nothing to stop violent crime. Had it been law in 1981 it might have saved Brady and Reagan and two others from being shot. It was law in 1999 and did nothing to prevent the Columbine tragedy.

Reagan never had a chance to support or sign the Bill while in office. He did, however, sign the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) into law in 1986. Like Reagan’s immigration “crackdown”, the Act’s name is a misnomer. FOPA, 100 Stat. 499, amended 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq. (and related laws) in an overhaul of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 82 Stat. 1213-2.

Had Reagan been a friend of the Second Amendment he would have attempted to repeal the GCA and the National Firearms Act (NFA). He did not; he added more controls. FOPA had two effects. One, it shuffled around ATF regulations and procedures in response to complaints of arbitrary and redundant policies. However, the “loosening” of some regulations came with a steep price. The second part of FOPA essentially banned the sale to and possession of machine guns by civilians.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The machine gun “ban” was not actually a total bar. In reality did two things: it created onerous requirements for ownership, and; it limited the supply of available guns. Current estimates of the number of fully automatic weapons available to the public are somewhere around 180,000 units. This limitation caused the price of the guns (not including the taxes and procedural costs of ownership) to skyrocket.

The military or a police agency can purchase a new Heckler and Koch MP5 9mm sub-machine gun for somewhere south of $3,000 (well equipped). A citizen can buy the same thing for north of $30,000 before taxes. And, the citizen gets a reconditioned pre-1986 model. It’s like the government’s stupid “cash for clunkers” program that dried up the supply of used cars and forced more people into buying more expensive newer cars; except, here, the people are left with only a supply of outrageously overpriced used vehicles.

Now, many folks do not like the idea of any automatic weapons in the hands of the commoners. Liberals use “machine guns” as a rallying cry to describe just about any gun – from a Daisy BB rifle to a single-shot 12 gauge. Even people on the right are often opposed to the concept. I’ve been at several NRA functions and similar events where gun lovers would tell me, when prompted or on their own, that “no one needs a machine gun”.

Really? Then just how did the nation survive from the invention of the machine gun (call it Maxim in 1883) until 1986 without total calamity? It’s the same reason “assault rifles” pose no danger – criminals don’t use them. Criminals prefer handguns like Hinkley’s .22 plinker. Of the 8,124 murders committed in 2014 with firearms, only 248 were committed with any kind of rifle. In the same year 435 people were murdered by baseball bats and hammers while 660 were killed by punches and kicks. Automatic weapons appear nowhere in the statistics even though there are about 180,000 of them out there.

This is the way it’s always been. In years past and in a freer America anyone could purchase any type of weapon with no government interference at all. This included machine guns. Then, as now, there was no problem or epidemic associated with these dread devices. That’s because they are really only good for engaging large numbers of hostiles at once. Even combat soldiers rarely resort to fully automatic firing. In war machine guns are usually used in concentration against hardened positions, armor, or against massed enemy troops. Before 1898 and the Spanish-American War the American military had almost no machine guns at all. The Rough Riders had to rely on civilian-donated guns to attack San Juan Hill. That means for about 15 years machine guns were only in private hands – with no reported problems.

Well, we had it…. izquotes.com

Now, you might be thinking, “if machine guns are only useful in extreme circumstances in war, why bother having them?” The truth is most people would not own them even if they were completely unregulated. It’s the freedom, the option to have them that matters. Given that we have a government which raises taxes, increases the debt and burden on the people, stirs up terrorists, and imports aliens (including terrorists) – often while lying about it all – perhaps this is an option the people need.

Like them or not, these weapons are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and by the Natural Law theory of self-preservation. These are part of the citizen gun rights in need of protection. Ronald Reagan didn’t do it regardless of what the Facebook conservatives think.

Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass shootings, terror attacks, and assassinations always prompt a heated national “discussion” on the matter of firearms and firearms control (the private ones, mind you). As with any important issue there are many competing ideas and angles though there are two predominant groups that get attention – pro-gun control and anti-gun control. While I am solidly in favor of the private ownership and use of firearms, my anarchist disposition gives me a unique, almost outside view.

As I see the current debate one side, the gun controllers, really want a complete ban on all private firearms though they present their ideology in terms of “responsible”, incremental measures designed only to ensure safety. The other side, the NRA side, nominally defends the Second Amendment while agreeing to many of the same incremental controls sought by the other side. I see both groups ultimately seeking to use the power of government to advance their own agendas and the agenda and existence of the government itself. They are both allied with the state. I have no use for any of them.

Some of the gun grabbers are blatant about their ultimate aim – Rolling Stone called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Other grabbers pretend to agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms while insisting that those arms never be used for defensive purposes.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.

The author of this insane Huffington Post statement wants to alter, rather than abolish, the 2A in order to nullify it. The author takes into account only those relatively few crimes committed and lives lost to the illegal use of guns. Considered in totality, privately owned guns save far more lives every day and every year than they take. Then again, by this man’s standards, each such lawful defensive usage constitutes a deprivation of the original aggressor’s right.

The only thing I can think of to attempt to justify this kind of logic is that this fellow obviously worships the government as a god and regards laws as a religion. Like a Natural Law theorist, he seeks to conform all positive law to the designs of and the adoration of his god. He would happily place the primacy of the state over the lives of human beings. He is a statist’s statist. Some on the other side do a good job of refuting this nonsense:

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The NRA is the poster child of the pro-Second Amendment movement. They are vilified by the New York Times:

What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.

And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.

There is no truth to any of this dribble from the fallen Gray Lady. The worst of the lies is that the NRA is complicit with terrorism and that it blocks those “common sense” gun control measures. It does not. The NRA seems more than happy with the bulk of the existing gun control measure – all of them unconstitutional. While the NRA backs lawsuits to overturn various local measures, they roundly accept the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Both of these laws treat all Americans like criminals and bar the easy or economical possession of the type of weapons actually protected by the Second Amendment.

The NRA also agrees with the opposition regarding the expansion of watch lists – to exclude terrorists from the gun pool of course, and no more… Their own words on the matter:

Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

This statement places the NRA (and Donald Trump by association) in the same position regarding gun control as Senate Democrats and the Obama administration – though the Executive seems a little at odds with itself as to how the proposed list measures would be (will be) implemented. Proposals to expand the “no-fly” list to cover firearms purchases has even drawn the ire of the ACLU as the list procedures (as they exists and as proposed) violate fundamental due process.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Hussein Obama, and their friends are all wrong. There is no due process at all concerning these controls. The new Senate proposal, S.551, mentions due process protection and then negates it in the same paragraph.

The government really has no dog in this fight as it is the primary creator and enabler of terrorism today. If not for the unceasing meddling and misadventure of the state there wouldn’t be any terrorists in our nation to worry about and no need for any lists nor for gun control.

A former CIA agent admits the government and the elites are the problem:

A former CIA counterterrorism agent has said it is time to talk about why terrorism really happens, and to address the “misguided narratives” that lead to oversimplification of the situation and continued war.

Amaryllis Fox worked on counterterrorism and intelligence in the CIA’s clandestine service for ten years. She told AJ+ that the beliefs surrounding terrorism are “stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides, who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of use to keep killing each other.”

Fox says the current conversation about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the US “is more oversimplified than ever.”

“Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops,” she said.

Her observation echo what H.L. Mencken said about the government’s imaginary hobgoblins a century ago. Hitler concurred that terrorism (real or manufactured) is the best way to keep people panicked and, therefore, controlled. Gun control is about people control. Terrorism, war, and government in general are about creating and maintaining power for a few. It’s that simple. That’s what they’re working towards.

And, they are working hard. After Washington stirs up an already volatile region in begins to import the angered locals into America. Some really are hapless refugees. Others are terrorists – as the CIA admits. Oddly … or not, many of the recent notable terror suspects in America have had some ties to the CIA. This should raise serious questions and red flags about the state’s motives and how those motives negatively affect the rest of us – but it doesn’t. The bulk of the discussion put forward by either side of the political divide or by the government itself is: what else can the government do?

What they are doing is just more of the same. The people keep seeing their freedoms chipped away. The elites keep amassing power. The useless laws grow. The attacks, foreign and domestic, continue. They unvetted “refugees” keep pouring in – over 400 from Syria alone – since the Battle of Orlando this past weekend.

The horror and the comedy of the divide is how pointless it all is. Until the ridiculous, blasphemous, and hellish cult of government is dealt with, none of it matters.

Google.

Divine Justice?

06 Friday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A crazy man in Israel tried to get a restraining order against God. I did not make this up.

The unnamed Haifa resident, pro se, “argued that over a three-year period God, had exhibited a seriously negative attitude toward him, although details of just what divine mischief he had borne the brunt of were not mentioned in the report.” Previously the man sought assistance from the local police, who instead chose to conduct welfare checks at the man’s home.

The judge denied the petition and suggested the man needs help from “other resources”. That probably means from a shrink. If psychology isn’t behind the man’s problems then he should consult his Torah and the trials of Job. Sometimes bad things happen to good people but rarely without greater reason.

This story illustrates a growing philosophical trouble in America, in Europe, and it seems in Israel. Modern people are placing inordinate faith in government – replacing the authority of God with that of the state. It is rightly the other way around. Positive law flows from the Natural Law which is a divine construct. God is originally behind all of our attempts to legislate and govern (some attempts truer, sounder than others). This would include courts and restraining orders. Heck, it includes the surrounding greater universe too.

The old maxim is “let justice be done, though the heavens fall” not “let Heaven fall for justice”.

Amazing Justice: Hastert Sentenced to Prison

27 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Forget the bullsh!t of Trump and Clinton. Forget terrorism and the economy for a bit. Here is the feel-good story of the day! A federal judge, Thomas M. Durkin, took a rare opportunity to use his office and power for the good of the free and formerly oppressed people. God bless the man.

CHICAGO (AP) — Dennis Hastert, the Republican who for eight years presided over the House and was second in the line of succession to the presidency, was sentenced Wednesday to more than a year in prison in the hush-money case that included accusations he sexually abused teenagers while coaching high school wrestling.

Judge Thomas M. Durkin also ordered Hastert to undergo sex-offender treatment, spend two years on supervised release after 15 months behind bars and pay a $250,000 fine to a crime victims’ fund.

In explaining his punishment, the judge called Hastert a “serial child molester” and described as “unconscionable” his attempt to accuse one of the victims of extortion.

Hastert becomes one of the highest-ranking politicians in American history to be sentenced to prison. He pleaded guilty last fall to violating banking law as he sought to pay $3.5 million to someone referred to in court papers only as Individual A to keep the sex abuse secret.

Earlier in the hearing, a former athlete who said he was molested by Hastert decades ago told the courtroom that he was “devastated” by the abuse.

This sentence is vindication for Hastert’s real and long-suffering victims, the young men he molested. Fifteen months do not seen nearly enough for child molestation but, under these circumstances, it is as stiff a sentence as possible (no, I did not run numbers through the federal guidelines – going gut and by experience).

Hastert plead guilty to banking irregularities and was sentenced under the laws he once rammed through Congress. Judge Durkin though concentrated his discretionary authority on the underlying (underlying but all but admitted) crimes against the then children Denny molested. His insistence on rehabilitation and restitution are huge. They perhaps could serve as the basis for an appeal under the theory Durkin exceeded the scope of his proceedings. However, because Denny entered a plea the odds of a successful appeal are slim. My guess is that the demented scofflaw will slink or roll, rather (see picture), into the nearest minimum security prison camp (country club prison). If his medical claims are true he may be placed near or in a federal MCC for the duration of his sentence.

AP Photo

AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast.

The media seems shocked that such a formerly high-ranking official is bound for prison. I am shocked by the manner in which he is going – labeled as a “serial child molester” rather than as a bank defrauder. Like I say, every once in a while a little justice leaks out of the system. For nearly a year I dreaded this was going to be another case about money and power. Thomas Durkin managed to uphold the letter of the positive law and, more importantly, the spirit of the Natural Law. Hooray!

Structuring a Proper Punishment: The Dirty Denny Hastert Saga Continues

27 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Bertolt Brecht, German poet, and Anacharsis the Scythian long before, said that (pardon my approximation) laws are like spider’s webs; they ensnare small, unwary things while larger things break through with ease. It is commentary on inequality of equal protection and application and seems a near, if imperfect, iron law of jurisprudence.

However, sometimes a larger thing, weakened by age or sin – even the old, fat spider himself – falls victim to his own weaving.

Last spring I devoted more than a few articles to the life and sordid times of former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. It seems that, like more than a few politicians, Hastert at one time favored the illicit company of young boys. Today I find the foul beswiker back in the news.

Rick McKee, Augusta Chronicle.

As you may recall Hastert was once a high school wrestling coach who engaged in “misconduct” with at least four of his underage male charges.  Years later the coach and some of his victims reached an agreement whereby he would pay them restitution by way of hush money. Not wanting to draw attention to his affairs Hastert assembled the money via small withdrawals – thereby violating the Imperial criminal laws against “structuring”.

The former Speaker and lecherous leech now faces prison time. “Former speaker Dennis Hastert will learn on Wednesday [today] whether his stunning fall from grace will also include prison time for bank fraud that he committed as part of an effort to cover up an accusation of sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy.” USA Today, April 27, 2016.

Again, I must note that Hastert is in trouble not for abusing children but for abusing arbitrary banking laws imposed by a corrupt government. That government cares little to nothing for childhood innocence; it’s concentration is ever on protecting criminal bankers and on preserving its own power. Bank fraud, they’re calling it. The real fraud is in the banking system and the government that protects the banks. In other words, the state simply isn’t worth maintaining.

A great irony in this story is that Hastert himself once championed some of the very laws he is now accused of violating. The structuring laws were allegedly enacted to make life and operations more difficult for drug dealers and terrorists. As usual the original or stated intent was immediately expanded so as to probe the private actions of anyone and everyone.

Undoubtedly Hastert deserves prison time or worse but not for imagined banking irregularities. That he has been caught in his own web is fitting. He has suffered in other ways since his indictment.

After decades of silence, his real crimes have come to light. He has been unable to finish his payments under the hush agreements and has been sued by his victims for breach of contract. He supposedly suffered a stroke – and not the kind of stroke with which this filth was once accustomed. Perhaps worst of all, Denny has witnessed the changing times. Had he waited a few years or just been born later in time, his actions would have been permissable to a large segment of the population. Without fear of payments or prison he could have carried on his “lifestyle” in the comfort of a Target restroom.

Denny’s now adult victims, some of them, will have the opportunity long denied to testify today in federal court. The prosecution needs their statements to round out the details of the structured payment violations. One would hope the underlying details behind those payments will serve as aggravating circumstances and consideration for sentencing. Otherwise, the judge will be directed by sentencing guidelines concerning the relative harmlessness of the Speaker’s fraud and his status as a first offender with no other record. A wrist slap may be in order. Today will tell.

At any rate, there is still time for Hastert to repent if he hasn’t done so already. Thereby he may avoid real punishment worse than the millstone. As much as I ridicule him, I hope this is the case. By divine authority and Natural Law, individual sins may be forgiven; government malfeasance perhaps not.

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

bbnhyu66667

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 in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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-Gun-Free

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.

IMG_20151115_142637057

Molon labe.