Posts Tagged ‘originalism’

The Chiffon Dress Covering Naked Oppression

Sunday, July 16th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, as a law not enforced becomes meager sophistry, a Constitution unenforced becomes a chiffon dress, to cover naked oppression. One way to undermine a constitution, and therefore establish oppression, is to keep the words the same, but change their meaning. Take the US Constitution. Freedom of religion has become separation of church and state, freedom of speech is under attack in every corner of the globe and even in liberal Canada is lost, while, shall not be infringed, now has added to it “unless it is dangerous,” in the unwritten language of tyrants, and States Rights are whatever scraps fall from the Federal Government’s table. When the police do not enforce a law, over time, everyone becomes a scofflaw, how much more so then, when it is a Constitution that is not enforced, and the people effected are ambitious and unscrupulous to begin with?.

Today we live in extra constitutional times. The US is not alone in this, what nation state or super state like the EU, or empire like China, actually hold everyone to the same standard? The elite in all countries point to their respective constitutions as proof of the legitimacy of their rule, but the moment that same document gets in the way of their avarice or hubris, they ignore it like a smelly cousin at the prom. The elite love to add in more government giveaways, because that increases their power, a government that has by constitutional authority the power and duty to provide for the one, has the power and duty to take from the other, the other always at the discretion of the elite. The more things the elite can glom onto a constitution, like the right to good housing, healthcare and three meals a day, basically three hots and a cot, like a prisoner or factory town worker… the thicker the cloth covering the tyrant’s naked oppression.

Our constitutions, and especially the US Constitution, have been undermined by the post modern philosophy of likening a constitution to a living breathing document, which in practice means the Constitution says whatever the Hell the elite say it does, and if they change it tomorrow to better suit their needs, then so be it. A constitution that’s meaning changes, “with the times,” is not a constitution but a means of legitimizing oppression, just as a law that is never enforced is not a law but a way of allowing a thing, while pretending to not allow it. The changes are not done to the words but to their interpretation. As whole clauses are ignored, irrelevant words are magnified to mean what they obviously don’t, all allowing the self serving elite to change the Constitution, outside the Constitutionally prescribed method.

That is how; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Has been used to… establish a state religion of Islam/atheism, license people to talk over the air, and in Sharia compliant nations, talking about Islam will get you imprisoned… like Canada and England, with many elite demanding we in the US adopt those same laws. Meanwhile the US government has established Islam as dominant over all others by their actions. When holy Bibles were found in the possession of a serviceman, the government itself burned them, as trash, but the Koran is by code of conduct supposed to be handled with gloves, with both hands at all times, etc… but NEVER BURNED! Which, judging by actions and indeed rhetoric as well, establishes Islam as a dominant religion to Christianity. Every year the Right to Life marches in DC to condemn the Roe vs Wade decision, that has led to the slaughter of over 60 million babies in the US, those old grandmothers, mothers and young women have to be licensed and by the government and intimidated by snipers and police the whole way.

As long as we allow this post modernist philosophy to reign… our Constitution will be rendered ever more impotent. Common sense will be further crushed under the jackboots of social justice and cultural Marxism. It was only recently that the democrat party denied God three times and booed him after, daily we hear about shrines to Satan going up, in places in the US, Dearborn MI, for example, a Christian no longer has Constitutional protections while certain groups are above the law, those who expose the selling of baby parts are tried as criminals, the government itself exports guns to Mexican drug cartels and then blames gun dealerships along the boarder for the ensuing violence, etc… Our common sense is assaulted daily by these absurdities, and due to the tribal nature of humanity, many of us toss common sense out, for our team, both teams.

The answer is to force our leaders to follow the Constitution as written and originally interpreted. If the elite want to change it, fine, do it by the Constitutionally prescribed means. We have to stop tolerating absurd statements like, “living breathing document,” to describe what should be cast in stone. It is our complacence that allows the elite to get away with it. Our Constitution was never meant to be a cover for oppression… it was to be a protection against oppression! That which we tolerate, like a law that is not enforced,… we will have. Yes, it is hard to stand up, especially when dancing with the stars is on, the recliner is so comfortable and you are half way into a six pack, but if we don’t, our children will have chains holding them fast, rather than bread and circuses. Lets make our Constitution a bulwark against tyranny instead of a concealment for it… be self interested rightly understood human hearted civilized human beings. The type of people that change the world for the better.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Judicial Activism is Treason

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.

The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.

Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.

Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.

A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.

When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.

Sincerely,

John Pepin