I Can See Clearly Now!

I just had a revealing Twitter exchange with a woman who is a criminal defense attorney of 35 years in San Francisco and a self-described unrepentant liberal. She initially responded to my complaints about Barack Obama by reminding me that he was elected by a majority of Americans and telling me that I should just get over it. I replied that if a mob does a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. There ensued a discussion about democracy, majority rule, the Constitution and a republican form of government. While she avowed her understanding and allegiance to the Constitution and the concept of republican government, all of her arguments trumpeted pure democracy and majority rule. I'm not sure if she was being intentionally disingenuous or really did not understand her contradictions. Either way, it's very disconcerting. I am coming to believe that liberals, Democrats, the ruling class; whatever you want to call them simply believe that if a party or politician wins a majority of support they can go forth and do whatever they darn well please. They believe that winning a majority gives them permission to ignore and subvert the constitutional constraints and limits on their power to do things to the minority. That is pure democracy, which is pure majority rule, which is mob rule, which is tyranny. She was aghast that I would label pure majority rule as mob rule. She felt that I was disavowing the Constitution. How could she have passed Constitutional Law 101? It is this mentality that has lead to the bastardization, misinterpretation and misapplication of the rather narrow Interstate Commerce Clause to give unlimited carte blanche power to the federal government. At the same time they must completely ignore Article 1, Section 8 as if it does not even exist. Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. It is the ability to hold two diametrically opposing ideas in the mind at the same time with no stress or anxiety. If the Interstate Commerce Clause does give the feds unlimited power to act however the majority chooses, why on earth did the Framers bother to write Article 1, Section 8? Sort of begs the question. It is because the Framers did not intend for the Interstate Commerce Clause to anoint unlimited power upon the federal government! They saw it as merely a means to prohibit the various States from erecting unreasonable limitations to the movement of goods across their borders to and from other States. AND THAT's IT! That understanding is why the Framers then went on to write Article 1, Section 8 to specifically describe the powers and limits of the federal government. The two portions of the Constitution were not mutually exclusive in the minds of the Framers, BUT THEY ARE TO LIBERALS! To liberals, Article 1, Section 8 limits the power of the majority which is why they simply act as if it does not even exist in the Constitution. They vest all of their energy and interest in their bizarre interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause because in their minds that gives the majority unfettered power--WHICH IS WHAT THEY SEEK! This woman has made it all perfectly clear. And it doesn't matter whether this mindset is intentional or instinctual, the outcome is the same. And the outcome is just as dangerous, which is why we must resolutely oppose it at every turn.

King For A Day, Year, Term, Life?

The liberal progressives love to talk about the Constitution being a 'living,

breathing' document. How is that possible when they have deliberately

killed it? It's dead as a doornail as my mother would say. Proof of that is

that the current federal government does anything and spends anything it

darn well pleases and any of us that raise constitutional objections to their

behavior are laughed out of Washington. A city named for the man who

had the most reverent respect for the Constitution. We used to talk about

being a nation of laws, not men. History clearly shows that when the whim

of men rule without legal restraint, tyranny and horror follow. The same

holds true for a pure democracy. Simple, unfettered majority rule is merely

anarchy by another name. Actually its worse, its oppression and abuse of

the minority by majority mob rule. That's why our Constitution did not

establish a simple democracy with majority rule. We are a constitutional

representative republic with democratically elected public servants. The

majority is constrained by the mutually agreed to provisions and restrictions

of the Constitution. Furthermore, changing any tenet of the Constitution

is a laborious and time-consuming task, requiring far more than a simple

majority vote. As it should.

So today, with our Constitution essentially relegated to tawdry Saturday

Night Live skits for laughs, we are no longer a national of laws. We are

a nation ruled by the whim of the man-of-the-moment. Right now that

man is Barack Hussein Obama. Whatever he says goes, whatever he

wants he gets. Rule by executive order and regulatory fiat, not by

constitutional principles or even legitimate legislation. Take over private

businesses and industry at the drop of a hat. This is fascist tyranny.

Tomorrow the man (or woman) of the moment might be Mitt Romney

or Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I don't care who it is,

I don't like it. I don't want to be ruled (vs. governed) by anyone under

such tyrannical circumstances, whether right or left, Republican or

Democrat, conservative or liberal, libertarian or progressive. The rule

of any man, if unfettered will lead to disaster; no matter how seemingly

benevolent or altruistic the original intentions.

In my estimation, the survival of our nation rests upon our ability to

restore the Constitution and the rule of law to its rightful preeminence

in a very short period of time. Failing this, I fear all is lost.

A Fixed Point of Reference

Can morality exist without God? Can there be absolute truths, good and bad, right and wrong without edicts from an Almighty? If not, who is to say which Almighty and which religious books we believe and follow? Hmmm, good questions. The answers should be even more interesting. Let’s think this through. For the sake of argument let’s stipulate that there is no God and no body of heavenly directives. When a group of people come to live in close proximity and form a society, human nature being what it is; there will be crime. Some people will take property from others and do bodily harm upon them. The victim will say to the aggressor that I don’t like that, it hurts me and it is wrong for you to do this. Yes, we can all agree that the victim doesn’t like it. We can also agree that it harms the victim. But, how do we say that it is wrong. Maybe the aggressor likes it, he gets a perverse satisfaction from the act and he is not harmed but rather rewarded with the stuff that he has stolen. He might say that what he did was not wrong, but very right for him. So how do we resolve this clash of right vs. wrong? Remember, there is no God or Bible and there are no laws yet. It’s just one person’s word and preference against another’s. So, the victim goes to his neighbors and exhorts them to band together to pass laws proscribing such behavior and punishing those who violate the laws. But, they ask; upon what basis do we make our decisions about which activities shall be deemed illegal and which shall not? Well, those activities which harm others should be illegal he responds. But the aggressor says that he was not harmed, but improved but his activities against you. So if we simply put to a vote of the people (pure democracy) it comes down to how many victims vs. aggressors happen to live in the society at the time of the vote. The determination of what is to be defined as right and wrong is merely left to the number of people lined up on either side. Too many aggressors and right is wrong and wrong is right, sort of. This is the tyranny of the majority over the minority in a pure democracy (devoid of a constitution or overarching set of guiding principles, e.g. The Holy Bible). Morality thus becomes relative and potentially ever-changing. A fixed point of reference that it always moving.
OK, we could say that only encounters and activities that harm neither party are allowed. If either or both parties are harmed the activity is illegal. We are now faced with defining harm. And we are now right back where we started from. How do we define harm? Remember, the aggressor in our scenario argues that he was not harmed. His concern for his victim is nil. If there are enough of these aggressors in the society, when the vote on the definition of harm comes, how do we think they will vote? We have made no progress.
Well, let’s look to our history and traditions for guidance. Oops, this is a new society with no historical tradition. Well some things are just so heinous that they are obviously wrong. Based upon your opinion that may be the case. And it may be the opinion of most members of society, but probably not all. And I would agree that some things are so bad that it just seems to make sense that they should be disallowed. But we are still relying upon the vote of the majority. It’s that tyranny of democracy thing again and such decisions don’t have real lasting power. They are relative and change over generations. It’s hard to order society when the targets keep getting moved around.
It’s beginning to look like we need some sort of outside supreme force to set some absolute truths and guardrails to guide our lawmaking process. These would be non-changing non-negotiable tenets. The only rules which meet those requirements that I know of come from God. But now we must decide whose God and which spiritual writings we accept. The good news here is that most of the recognized religions of the world have many similar absolute teachings on the basics of human life. That’s not to say that people and people groups over the years have not distorted and misapplied these teachings and caused harm to come to people. However, that is not a failing of the teachings but rather of human nature. That we sometimes abuse the doctrine does not indict or nullify the usefulness of the doctrine.
So I say that the only and best solution is for our society to select (yes by popular vote understanding the whole democratic tyranny thing but realizing that there really is no bad choice here for the reason stated in the last paragraph, whew) one of the religious doctrines, base their constitution and laws upon it and stick with it. Period. There really is no other rational choice. It’s the best path available to imperfect human beings in my opinion.
For the United States of America that choice is the Christian religion, derived from Judaism. These are the principles codified in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Thinking Can Be Taxing

I just concluded a discussion (debate) with a friend regarding the question of the federal income tax. He was whooped but refused to admit it. The question was on the fairness/constitutionality of the ‘progressive’ federal income tax where the more income one makes the higher percentage tax is paid on it. My point is that the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax does not speak to tax brackets or percentages. Given that, the next place to look for instruction is the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law. Anyone with passing knowledge of logical deduction would conclude that within those constraints all citizens taxed on their income would be taxed at the same percentage rate. Right? But, he replied if you make more you should pay more! Eureka, he just discovered the mother-lode. Egad, how many times have I heard that tired bromide? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…ooops, wrong country wrong constitution. I desperately tried to explain the scenario that 10% of a million dollars is substantially more than 10% of fifty-thousand dollars. Not enough, he snapped. Says who, says I? Well, the Congress. So is 20% of a million enough, compared with 10% of fifty-thousand I ask? Maybe. Again I remind him of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection concept. He is not moved to enlightenment. So rather than obey the actual letter of the Constitution we should let the Congress arbitrarily set the tax brackets based upon the prevailing political winds of the day. And change them constantly. How’s that for equal treatment? Now the 10th Amendment becomes relevant. If the Constitution does not specifically empower the Congress, it cannot act; but rather must defer to the States acting as agents of the People. So, in carrying out its 16th Amendment power to levy income taxes on the citizens, the Congress must also be guided by the equal protection concepts of the 14th Amendment. To do otherwise would be acting extra-constitutionally or even un-constitutionally. Passing legislation to set progressive tax rates does not and cannot amend the Constitution. Gotcha, I cry! He is unfazed. Ah well, pearls before swine.
The rub is that he really knows that I am technically correct, but that to admit so would begin unraveling a huge quilt leading to the undoing of 50 years of progressive chinks (chunks) in the Constitution. The result would be a federal government about 10% of its current size and power. The States’ power would thus grow proportionally. And it’s much easier to control one capital than it is fifty. Also, under this scenario the importance of Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial races would be greatly diminished. The importance of which party controls the federal government is likewise less critical. There would be very little mischief for them to meddle in and much less damage that they could do to our pocketbooks and our freedoms.
What we are rapidly approaching is a return to simple democratic majority rule, which is of course tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since we have strayed so far from the actual text of the Constitution it has become almost meaningless to many politicians. Why not just take out a lighter and finish the job? Without our constitutional moorings the federal government is free to do anything it pleases without repercussion. That is why it does matter so much these days which party is in power and why these national elections matter so much. Conservatives tend to meddle less than liberals in our pocketbooks and freedoms, but it would be far better to remove the ability and temptation altogether.
Let’s return to the actual Constitution as it is written. And at the same time return to the constitutionally required flat-tax rate for all citizens equally under the law; or just pass a Constitutional amendment to institute a national sales tax (not a V.A.T.).