"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," warned Thomas Jefferson.
July 13, 2018 Leave a comment
What you are seeing is the death throes of the Jackass Party. The change was brought on by themselves.
The new crowd really is the same as the old crowd, just more noisy. The only difference is the lack of understanding of how the world and ‘Man’ works. They will be flinging themselves of the nearest cliff fore long.
July 11, 2018 Leave a comment
As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their secession from Great Britain, references to the Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4, 1776 were many. But while the left reminded us “all men are created equal” and the right reminded us that all inalienable rights come from our Creator, far too little attention was paid to another phrase in Jefferson’s famous preamble: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Judging from the way most Americans talk, almost no one remembers how that consent is supposedly obtained.
Hint: It isn’t from voting, but that’s what most Americans seem to believe. According to this narrative, representatives are elected democratically, and by casting one’s vote, one consents to whatever legislation the representatives who win the election choose to pass, or whatever executive actions the elected president chooses to take. In the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, surrogates for President Obama often justified that new federal endeavor with the quip, “That’s why we have elections.” Conservatives employ the same reasoning when their candidates win.
That raises the question: Why did the framers bother with Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Article I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 in Article II, or Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Why did they include Article V at all?
The answer is that the aforementioned sections define the list of powers the people were consenting to, all others being reserved to the states or the people, while Article V was provided as the one and only means for the people to consent to any new powers. Put another way, any power exercised by the federal government that is not among those delegated in the Constitution is power exercised without the consent of the governed.
So, determining what the federal government should do is not “why we have elections.” Elections merely decide who will exercise powers already granted.
Even this standard for establishing consent of the governed requires an extremely elastic interpretation of the word “consent.” In the end, ratification of the Constitution itself and subsequent amendments were just another series of majority votes, each posing all the dangers to individual rights that any democratic process poses. That makes legislating without meeting even this low standard for consent even more egregious.
The word “unconstitutional” tends to obscure what’s really going on when the black robed high priests in Washington retire to deliberate on some new constitutional challenge. It’s such a stuffy, academic-sounding word that well-meaning people probably honestly believe it’s better left to the finest legal minds to determine. But what judicial review really purports to do is determine if anyone ever consented to the power being exercised by the law or executive action in question. And if the power is not listed in the original Constitution or a subsequent amendment, the answer is “no.”
That means that when the Supreme Court ruled as “constitutional” Social Security, Medicare, federal drug laws and myriad other federal legislation, it was ruling that the ratifying conventions of 1787-90 consented to the federal government having those powers right from the beginning.
That seems ludicrous, doesn’t it?
The Constitution is not written in a dead foreign language or legalese. It’s written in plain English, in a manner “We the People” can understand. It doesn’t take the finest legal minds in the country to determine which powers are granted and which are not. It’s all there in black and white. In fact, because it’s so unambiguously written, the court has had to rule constitutional most of what the federal government does outside of the military under the power granted in the Commerce Clause, which was originally proposed and ratified mainly in reaction to states erecting their own tariffs.
The assertion that by granting the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, 18th-century Americans were consenting to allow the federal government to force them to participate in a federal pension program, monopolize all health insurance for people over 65 years of age, prohibit possession or ingestion of certain plants, and even to mandate how much water Americans could have in their toilet bowls, is absurd. With few exceptions, the history of judicial review is the history of an unelected group of judges lending legitimacy and legal sanction to the federal government seizing vast new powers without the consent of the governed.
Prior to Donald Trump’s election, this writer heard from many conservatives and libertarians that they would vote for Trump solely based on their fear that Hillary Clinton could appoint replacements for several aging SCOTUS judges. Many believed the ancient right to bear arms could be lost based solely on this. Two years into Trump’s term, with one appointment confirmed and Anthony Kennedy retiring from the Court, liberals now decry the imminent threat to “reproductive rights,” gay marriage and other progressive pillars. Their rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly violent.
Surely, the founders never intended for the election of one man or woman to so profoundly change the legal framework of the entire nation, one way or another. This is the fruit of violating not only a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, but for violating the fundamental principle that underpins the entire document: that the federal government will exercise no power not delegated to it, i.e., without the consent of the governed.
Strict constructionists since Jefferson have argued even judicial review itself is a power nowhere delegated to the federal government. That’s one of the very few powers upon which there is room for argument on both sides. But whether the power was granted or not, history clearly shows it has been used to undermine one of the most important principles of the American republic.
Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If it takes nine judges dozens of pages of legalese to explain how the Constitution grants a power in question to the federal government, then we should assume the power isn’t there. If there is any question at all, an amendment to the Constitution should be offered to determine if the people really do consent. That goes for all previous rulings by SCOTUS on constitutionality. If we really believe in consent of the governed, why not be sure?
Most of what the federal government currently does wouldn’t pass the test. That probably scares the heck out of a lot of people, but it really shouldn’t. It would simply allow blue states to govern themselves in much bluer fashion and red states to do so in much redder fashion. That’s by no means a perfect solution, but it would be highly preferable to the imminent civil unrest—or worse—Americans currently face as a result of letting the federal government do whatever it wants.
Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.
July 7, 2018 1 Comment
A series of recent events has inspired some soul searching on the part of democrats who still have a brain. Among them, the call to abolish ICE
View original post 1,270 more words
July 4, 2018
And the “Right” has the legal permit. The “Left-fascists” don’t. The Left-fascists come with tools of violence. The Brownshirt Left-fascists initiate the violence.
Legally permitted rally shut down by Brownshirts. Authorities declare a riot and shut it all down, send everybody home. Where is the freedom of assembly if the government does not enforce it against fascist antifa?
The Left-Fascist Brownshirts Frontgroup for billionaire “social justice” (aka “democratic socialists”) are on the march. They think they have a winning strategy. But it might not work, because how fast can their allies in the Monster Internet allies complete a muzzling operation against people who dissent from power?
These guys are no “Resistance”. Hah! They’re doing the dirty work for their billionaire and Deep State masters.
Who is in control of government right now? Previous congressmen grew the federal government into the monster it is today, even while they looted us…
View original post 188 more words
July 4, 2018
Our hearts go out to the families of the 17 victims who, just two weeks ago, were murdered in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. The shooter, nineteen-year-old Nikolas Cruz, had several guns in his possession, including an AR-15 which he used in the attack. Questions surrounding the shooting abound and many people are demanding to have stricter controls placed upon the purchase of firearms, with many desiring to ban assault weapons altogether.
View original post 1,040 more words
July 3, 2018
In 2016, I posed a rhetorical question about whether young people are so stupid that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. After all, many of them thought Bernie Sanders would make a good president (of America, not Greece or Venezuela).
Well, maybe we really should increase the voting age. It seems 2016 was not an anomaly. Millennials are dangerously ignorant.
Here’s some analysis from CNN.
Millennials are…bringing a distinctly Millennial approach to policy and governing. And that might include Democratic socialism. Case in point: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
the 28-year-old Democratic socialist who won her primary in New York Tuesday in an upset over a 10-term incumbent. More than any other generation before them, Millennials are OK with socialism. A 2016 Gallup poll found 55% of those then aged 18-29 said they had a positive view of it (it’s worth noting 57% supported capitalism and 78% supported free enterprise). …Bernie Sanders’ presidential…
View original post 716 more words
June 27, 2018
Islamic Relief-USA’s current chairman Khaled Lamada, second from the left, displays the pro-Muslim Brotherhood salute with Waleed Sharaby (yellow scarf), a leader of the Brotherhood-linked Egyptian Revolutionary Council
The same group’s (IRUSA) chairman was recently photographed flashing the Muslim Brotherhood salute.
The latest via, Report: Taxpayers’ Money Going To Islamic Charity Group With Ties To Terrorist Groups | The Daily Caller
One of the largest Islamic charities in the world has financial ties to several terrorist organizations, according to a report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Islamic Relief, the highly influential international nonprofit, receives funds from the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, for example, which was founded by Al-Qaida terrorist and “Bin Laden loyalist” Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani, the report says. Islamic Relief is also accused of financially supporting Hamas, the militant and political Islamist organization regarded by much of the international community as a terrorist group.
View original post 476 more words
June 27, 2018
Chicago close to recording 600th homicide for only second time since 2003 – Chicago Tribune
— Read on www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-weekend-gun-violence-20171106-story.html
June 16, 2018
One assumes most of the people that work at the FBI are dedicated professionals, people that understand nothing destroys public confidence in their agency faster than engaging in politics. Yet, even the FBI, which bills itself, and not entirely without cause, as America’s premier law enforcement agency, is hampered by being forced to hire from the human race.
View original post 1,635 more words
June 16, 2018
Socialism promises many things. Equality for instance is one item. The opportunity to have a cost of living which lets you “keep up with the Kardashians” is touted as a huge benefit. Jobs for all is another grand idea, full employment is a goal. One gets this by living under a dictatorial form of government, like say” Venezuela.
Venezuela’s hyperinflation at new dizzying high
President Nicolas Maduro’s socialist government controls most of the country’s economy and is in the midst of an ever-deepening crisis with food and medicine in short supply.
Analysts blame what they call mismanagement of a state-led economy. That includes its control over hard currency, as well as low oil prices. Venezuela depends on crude oil for its earnings.
The government blames US sanctions and businessmen speculating on the problems.
View original post 367 more words
