Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

The Death of the US Constitution

Monday, February 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, with the death of Antonin Scalia our Constitution, which has been on life support for so many years, is about to die as well. There are two main factions battling for the soul of the US, one is adamant that the Constitution and limited government must be conserved, the other, that our Constitution is an impediment in their desire to progress the US into a fully rationalized economy, unlimited government and a controlled populace. Both factions believe their way is best for everyone. The faction that believes in unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled people has been moving the ball down the field for the whole of the twentieth Century. With the death of Scalia the faction that seeks to preserve limited government, a free market and liberty for the people has lost it’s last hold on the last instrument of protecting our Constitution and what it stands for. Once Obama has appointed another anti constitutionalist to the bench, you can count on a rapid slew of legislating from that bench, more ruling like Roe v Wade and a total loss of your Constitutional rights. They will be replaced, for awhile, by rights that are distributed by government.

Obama has already made a lasting impression on the Supreme Court. His picks have proven themselves to be uber partisans in gutting our Constitution and our Constitutional principles. Even when naked conflicts of interest, such as Sotomayor’s when ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s appointments have refused to rescind themselves. They have ruled until now, against the majority, that the Second Amendment does not confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, despite the obvious meaning of that amendment in the Bill Of Rights. Obama’s pick to replace Scalia will be another progressive who loathes our nation, it’s people, the free market and our Constitution. The erosion of our rights since the end of the Nineteenth Century can now go into overdrive.

The end of the Nineteenth Century saw the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first progressive, and in the political environment he was in, had to tread carefully. Even though, he instituted the National Park system, which allowed the Federal government to usurp the lands of private citizens for “wilderness areas.” The national park system, that has been so abused by the bureaucracy lately, has become a means for the government to abuse it’s citizens, like the Bundys and Hammonds. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to make a real move to get the US away from it’s Constitutional bounds.

Woodrow Wilson made a complete break from constitutionally limited government. His rule was so obnoxious that when he was finished the country voted in Harding and Coolidge in a landslide. They returned the US to Constitutionally limited government, laissez faire economics and liberty for the people. Their Presidencies ushered in the period of the fastest economic growth of the Twentieth Century, the near total destruction of the Klu Klux Klan, lowering crime rates, and widespread prosperity. When Coolidge stepped down he was replaced by the progressive Hoover. Hoover went back to moving the US away from our Constitution, free markets and liberty with such policies as the Smoot Hawly act that collapsed international trade ushering in the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt ran as a conservative but became a progressive tyrant in all but name. He took the reigns of the economy with policies controlling how much and what a farmer could plant on his own land, what retailers could charge for underwear and concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent. Violating the unstated law that since Washington had been in place, FDR ran for a third term and became President for life. On his death the nation lurched back to constitutional rule, but each time our nation was pulled away from our Constitution, the step back was weaker and many of the ideas and policies of the progressives stayed. The Supreme court during the FDR administration ruled in Wickard v Filburn the government could control what, how much and when a farmer could plant dramatically increasing the power, scope and rch of the government.

Some will pin their hopes on the next election. Many believe that with the election of a constitutionalist, of which there are very few running, the nation can be returned to constitutionally limited government. Alas that is not the case. The Supreme Court has as it’s only responsibility to protect our Constitution and maintain limited government. With the control of the Supreme Court by progressives they will immediately take it upon themselves to gut our Constitution and it’s limits on government. The Court is stacked with young progressives who will serve life terms. The most the next President could do, is replace the few constitutionalists on the bench with others, but that will not effect the status quo. Moreover, since all lawyers are members of the new class, the likelihood of getting a constitutionalist from that group grows smaller with each passing day.

The new class today are the strongest advocates for the progressive faction, that sees our nation as an impediment to a world government, where the human race can be controlled by people who are much smarter than us, for our own good. Trained by the intellectuals who are uniformly of the Frankfurt school the new class intelligentsia run our schools, media, businesses, culture and government. An antipathy for limited government has been thoroughly inculcated into their very psyche. They will cheer the appointment of a progressive to the Supreme court, tipping the balance away from constitutionally limited government, free markets and liberty, and towards unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled populace. With the control of the last bastion that limits government, the progressive faction can put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, once and for all. Wickard v Filburn is only a small taste of the poison that will come from the Supreme Court now. The death of Antonin Scalia is the death of liberty, free markets and limited government, your children will live in an Orwellian tyranny from which there will be no escape… regardless of who we elect next. Prepare for the coming tyranny as best you can.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

All Hail Our New Oligarchs!!

Thursday, July 2nd, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we are seeing the results of the new class’ idea that Our Constitution is a “living breathing document” philosophy, in that what it says is irrelevant, what it means is a non sequitur and the original intent is now utterly abandoned. So now, instead of a fixed document strictly enumerating the role, powers and limitations of our government, we have a meaningless rag that exists only to give the new class elite a faux legitimacy. Therefore, we now live under what the ancient Greeks called, arbitrary rule. The laws are arbitrarily set and enforced by the elite for their benefit, not the benefit of society. The new class is a defacto aristocracy, they are the only source for every judge, lawyer, congressman, President, college professor, reporter, editor, etc… Aristotle called an aristocracy that serves it’s own interest oligarchy. So our once Constitutional republic with a limited role of government has metamorphosed into an oligarchy that has arbitrary power.

What makes a king a king? Public opinion… If the people woke one morning and forgot that King Eggbert was king, and thought Wilbur Underwater is and has always been king, Wilbur would be king. If Eggbert stood and proclaimed he was and had always been king, he would be put in an insane asylum. It is as simple as that. If the public believe a person is king, then he or she is, alternatively, if the public believes the government can do a thing, then it can. If someone stands and proclaims that thing is illegal for the government to do, he or she will be roundly criticized a fool, since everyone “knows” they can! That is why the elite today get away with what they are doing, the public’s opinion is that they can. Public opinion has been changed from understanding the original meaning of the Constitution and the Framer’s intent, to a contemptible ignorance of it, because the new class has been pushing that message into the zeitgeist for generations.

The Legislative branch has abdicated it’s powers to the Executive and the Judicial. Laws are now made, enforced and infractions punished by the Executive. The Bureaucracy is essentially Philip Dru Administrator. It answers to no one but the President, making the President essentially a king in fact if not in name. The Legislative branch refuses to use it’s power of the purse to reign in an out of control President, because they support the US becoming an oligarchy with arbitrary rule. Since they are the oligarchs. If a President tried to return the US to Constitutional rule however, he or she would be assaulted by every branch of the government, media and the professional agitators. The new class hold on the mechanism of government is iron fisted.

The Judicial Branch has been increasing it’s law making powers for generations. In the 1940’s, the Supreme Court ruled that if the Federal government wants, it can outlaw people growing their own food on their own land. As absurd as that sounds it was a landmark ruling for Franklin Roosevelt and his progressive policies. That ruling led to the bureaucracy. In 1973 the Supreme Court invented a new “right,” that a woman could murder her unborn baby at any time for any reason. Since there was no negative consequences for the judges who made up a new right and wrote it into our Constitution outside the prescribed Constitutional process, (they should have been impeached by the Legislative branch), that opened up the total power of the Supreme Court to change our Constitution, however and whenever they wished, for whatever reason. In 1989 Mistretta v. United States the Supreme Court ruled the Legislative Branch could delegate it’s law making powers to the Exectutive, ie, the Bureaucracy, in violation of the nondelegation philosophy. All of which led directly to the newest usurpations by the Supreme Court, Gay marriage and rewriting Obama care.

The ruling about gay marriage is not about giving someone a new right, it is about forcing others to do what government wants. No one cares what consenting adults do. I am not trying to force others to follow my morality, Gay marriage however forces me to follow theirs. If a Gay couple want to force a business owner to be involved in their wedding, regardless of the moral conviction of that business owner, the full power and weight of the Federal government will come down on him or her forcing them to. What a slippery slope that is!! What it now establishes is that the government is now the arbiter of morality! Believe something other than what the government wants and they can punish you for your very thoughts.

Book burning cannot be far away now. All the government need do is label the ideas in any book “hate speech,” and it follows, they can seize all the copies and burn them. Now that the Supreme Court has given the government, and thereby the new class, arbitrary power to regulate morality and thought, it won’t be long before the government will decide what preachers can say at the pulpit, what ideas can be written down in books and even what you can say in your own home. There can be no greater tyranny then a government regulating our very thoughts, and no government that can, will ever allow us to change it. Remember; No matter how much you like what they are doing with that arbitrary power today, beware, you might not like it tomorrow, but then it will be too late, you gave them the right to do it today.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Elana Kagan’s Nomination To The Supreme Court

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the inevitable outcome of the judicial philosophy of Aharon Barak is an oligarchy of judges. There is no other possible outcome of such a philosophy.

Elena Kagan, Obama’s newest supreme court nominee, says Ahron Barak is her judicial hero. To say such a thing implies, at the very least, some sympathy to the judicial philosophy of the man. To be sympathetic to such a philosophy is to be ignorant of the inevitable outcome or to sympathetic to the outcome. Neither is a resounding attribute for a Supreme Court Justice.

His philosophy, that I find so onerous, is;

Judges should be able to decide if the people can change the Constitution, Judges should have the final say in all matters relating to the government, Judges should be able to change the meaning of laws (a dynamic new power), Judges should be removed by other judges only, and that no human action whatsoever is outside the discretion of the law.

In other words, Judges should decide what the Constitution means, the meaning being dynamic, they should re-interprets the meaning of the constitutions they felt necessary, they should rewrite law to suit their needs and be unaccountable to no one for anything except themselves. I ask… Why bother with the expense and trouble of the other three branches then Aharon. Simply the convenient bureaucracy? Or the illusion of freedom?

I cannot believe that everyone on the planet including Aharon Barak cannot see the inevitable outcome, the fruit if you will, of the type of philosophy. Absolute power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, flawed human beings without limit to their time in office. Hey, The military junta that rules Myanmar should start calling themselves the Supreme Court of Myanmar. Then Aharon Barak and the rest of the Progressives would have to, logically, turn their disdain to admiration. What the tyrant calls himself effects public opinion.

I am a great admirer and follower of the philosophy of William James. His philosophy of Pragmatism is a terrific guide to understanding the good and bad in a given ethos. In his method you look at the fruit of any philosophy to determine if it is “truth” or not. If the fruit is bitter… it is sophistry. If it bears sweet fruit for humanity it is, at least a form of, truth.

Under the philosophy of Aharon Barak, the fall into the tyranny of, a faction (Lawyers) that rule for it’s self serving interests will accelerate. Within a generation that faction will have seized control in perpetuity. (After all, who is more qualified to enact law, prosecute law, control and protect the Constitution, be commander and Chief and run the lives of the people… than an attorney). Democracy will mean (like it did in ancient Rome before the overthrow or Tarquinious), that the people will get to vote for the people who install their oppressors.

The US Constitution gives too much power to Lawyers. As a result lawyers have become a defacto oligarchy. Today they control all three branches of government. Every court ruling that awards someone millions of dollars for cutting himself while breaking a window to rob some people the result is more power for the faction (Lawyers).

Putting in a person who claims Aharon Barak as a hero on the Supreme Court is dicey at best. To do it without having seen sufficient jurisprudence to show temperament from Mrs. Kagan is just plain stupid.

I expect she will win overwhelmingly… Such is the caliber of our leaders.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling About Corporate Political Spending

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the way the unbiased media are playing the recent Supreme Court ruling, that the government cannot regulate anyone’s free speech, is despicable.

The first amendment reads as follows;

“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.”

The first Amendment to the US Constitution is all about, explicitly, denying the government the ability to regulate speech or religion. Especially political speech… “and to petition the Government”

I don’t see in this amendment anyplace that says that if enough people hate a group that the government then can regulate that group’s speech. My take is that the text regulates government… Not people or groups of people.

What is not prohibited from government by this amendment is that government can demand openness. Anyone who airs a political commercial should clearly state who is paying for and who made the commercial… Things take on a sour taste when they are done in the dark. But when things are done in the light of day they are much more sweet. Shining a light on what is now done in the dark can only improve the state of affairs.

Anyone who doesn’t think that the evil corporations didn’t affect elections, lawmaking and judicial appointments with their money, before this Supreme Court ruling, are innocents. They are innocent to politics and human nature. Where there is money and there is power that money will drawn to that power like water to low ground. If the overland rout is blocked it will go underground. Undermining society and societal structures.

This ruling should close the underground channels and place them in the top of the ground for us all to see. If we like what we see we will show our approval. If we are displeased we will show our disapproval. But the point is, it will be in front of our eyes for us to decide. We will be able to see the dealings.

The media are using the class envy argument. They are duplicit with Hollywood in vilifying corporations. Think about the villain in almost every adventure movie you have ever seen. Most are corporations. Some are power mad factions within a governmental structure but most are corporate heads. This impresses our subconscious that corporations are bad. The unbiased media are playing our emotions like a harmonica.

But what is a corporation? It is a group of people who have freely associated to do some business. They provide good paying jobs. Places to invest our capital for when we retire and they provide a heavy tax base to run government. They are not good or bad. They simply are. They inflict us with negative externalities and they bless us with positive externalities. Some are good and some are bad. But, unlike governments, corporations are subject to the market. (Unless government intervenes and warps the market by the use of underground money).

I believe that we are much smarter than the Elite explicitly give us credit. If we seem to be ignorant enough to let our politicians get away with too much it is because we are engaged in our own affairs. We are busy. We have to take time and resources away from productive labor for our personal good to keep up on political affairs. We would prefer that the Elite simply ran the nation so that we can run our own affairs. Unfortunately the Elite cannot be trusted. History, ancient through recent, proves this over and over.

So if we have access to the information we will make the right choices. People are cagy when they see their advantage and disadvantage. Corporations can only affect elections and such, aboveboard, if their arguments have merit. That is what the Elite are afraid of. The Elite always seek to limit debate. Close avenues of argument and vilify the other side. Because the Elite are arguing for the people to do damage to their own self interests. To have open debate about such a thing would allow the people to see the truth. No one hurts themselves. Not the poor, the middle element or the rich. We would stomp down the progressive plans in an instant if we could hear all side of the argument.

The Progressive Elite can never let that happen.

Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that President Obama’s pick to fill the vacant Supreme Court position, Sonia Sotomayor, has gotten a free pass from the unbiased media. We are poorly served when the media only peers at one political party in a two party system, and gives the other party a free pass. Our representative Democracy (Republic) depends on a truly unbiased media…

During the Clinton administration, every week on NPR, Bill Siemens wrung his hands that negative news about the President shouldn’t even be aired unless it is absolutely true and materially affects his performance in office. Week after week NPR went on that the evil blogs and crazies on the internet were finding out bad things about the President that should be hushed up by the unbiased media. Quite another story during the Bush years…

The unbiased media went along with the total slash and burn politics that characterized the Bork nomination. Rumors and outright lies were reported as truth. Instead of attacking the man’s arguments the Progressive Elites attacked the man personally. Destroying him in the process. The unbiased media happily went along like lap dogs.

Clarence Thomas was run through a wood chipper in the unbiased media. How he got out alive is beyond me. But I feel very sorry for what the unbiased media and the Progressive Elites put him through.

John Roberts and Sam Alito were given prostate exams by the unbiased media… What did all these men have in common? They are constructionists. They don’t think the Constitution should be rewritten by every new Supreme Court that sits. Doing so destroys the document’s value and use. It becomes the side of the barn in George Orwell’s “Animal House”. We must guard against that at all costs!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was given a free pass. There was no looking into possible bias in that she was formerly chief council for the ACLU. Since she has been on the Court she has found that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms, It gives the GOVERNMENT the right to keep and bear arms. Any cursory reading of the Federalist papers and other founding documents disproves her assertion. So she intends to rewrite the Constitution using her model. Her Hubris in such an action is without parallel. Well, maybe not isn‘t that the definition of the sovereignty of Kings?

From what I have read about Sotomayor’s rulings from the bench she appears to be cut from the same sack cloth as Ginsburg. But not in the unbiased media they have studiously reported nothing of her judicial philosophy. I have had to search the internet crazies and evil blogs to get any examples of her past rulings. They are not flattering, as would be expected, from evil blogs and such… Of course it would be biased for the media to give some representative examples of her past rulings… But she does have a compelling personal story. I guess in this case that is all that counts…

Together they will lobby for more legislation from the bench. Taking on more and more of the Legislative Branch’s authority. Apparently the Legislative Branch is willing to cede this authority willingly… The Senate must confirm her. Apparently things can be passed from the bench, the Progressive Elites believe in, that cannot pass the political process. (Where it belongs).

The Constitution is our only bulwark against the power of out of control government. Toss it out and despite the promises of the Elite we will be enslaved soon there after by out of control government… Yea… lets go back to the sovereignty of Kings… That’ll probably work better for us than it did for thousands of years…