Dear Friends,
It seems to me, if the enactment of law started at, “Is this Constitutional,” and continued with, “is this a valid role of law,” the problems we have… we would not have. One constant of government and especially unlimited, unaccountable and uncontrolled government, is that it creates problems, then grows to solve those problems, then grows again to solve the problems it just created, and so forth and so on… until every single aspect of human life must be suspended in regulation, for the leviathan to breathe. The other option, the option we are carefully distracted from with weather balloons, riots and wars, is a limited, accountable and controlled government. Water to the wicked witch of the West… the globalist corporatist elite. Maybe a house will fall on the wicked witch of the East?
If the State acts outside the Constitution that authorizes it, that action is not constitutional, and therefore not legal for the government to do. If we accept this truism, then it follows that when the Constitution that authorizes a government’s very existence, whose fundamental tenet is limited, accountable and controlled government, is being violated in the most perverted of ways, is no longer legitimate. If I am running a “bank” and steal all my customers money, only showing on paper their accounts are full… is that a legitimate bank, or is it something else, a fraud perhaps? How is government any different? Other than its self limited police and military power? By this standard, the fact Korematsu, Buck v Bell and Wickard v Filburn are still law in the US, is proof the US government is extra constitutional.
What is the “valid role of law?” Different people would answer differently. Which makes this a subjective question. Some have argued government should be total and unlimited, while others have countered that government must be limited and accountable. The role of law depends on where on that scale the inquirer lands. If we accept the definition of the US founding fathers, that government must be limited and accountable, then we have a way to glean the correct role of law, by an objective means. The founding fathers were a diverse lot, but their big debate was not if government should be limited, but how government can be limited. By this standard, the role of government cannot be so unlimited it can order us to do things… only limit us from property and violent crime, not social.
A government that thinks it has the authority to order our lives like chess pieces is a government that is out of control. Bureaucrats are the biggest victims of the Dunning Kroger Effect and thereby victimize the whole of mankind with their stupidity. They know a lot, so think their opinion is omnipotent, but they know just enough to be dangerous. Enforcing mask mandates during a pandemic, when masks had already been proven to be counterproductive a century earlier, using fear to demonize treatments then promote an injection that was neither safe, effective, nor sane. Only a government that is completely off the rails would open its boarders to replace its own population. What does it say about our courts that they jail patriotic political prisoners for years… while allowing anti American arsonists to walk?
I don’t think it is a great insight to point out that governments that are unlimited, unaccountable and uncontrolled, are also corrupt governments. If not corrupt today, tomorrow they will be. It is human nature. Corruptocrats want more power, and to rule from behind a curtain, like the Wizard of Oz. If every law and regulation was first put to the test of constitutionality, and if it exceeds the objective role of law as the founders opined, and only if that proposed regulation or bill meets those two standards can it be advanced, that would move our governments away from tyranny and toward being limited, accountable and controlled. If we could get our wizards to have a little humility, self awareness and prudence, we would prosper, become healthier and the State would wither.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
