Search This Blog

Friday, August 3, 2018

Venezuela Dictator Admits Mistake

HEADLINE: "Venezuelan President Finally Admits That Socialism is Broken, Economy Is Destroyed" (August 2018)

Sounds like President Maduro has seen the light? Well, sort of. At least he's acknowledging the abject failure of socialism. With hyperinflation further impoverishing the country and 93% of the population not earning enough for their own food needs, I'd say it was about time someone in Venezuela saw the light.

My guess is that his admission of failure is akin to a Hail Mary pass. He knows he and his regime are finished and that it is only a matter of time. That said, the following exemplifies the superficiality of his supposed epiphany: first, he blames the "US empire", then Chavez, his predecessor, and then the Venezuelan people--yes, the PEOPLE--for the economic disaster his regime created. (And you know what? In a real sense, Mad Maduro's right when he blames the people. The people demanded free bread and circus and they got stung with their own avarice.) Then, he proclaims "I want solutions, Comrades!" Comrades??? Gee, doesn't sound like a liberating epiphany to me. Yup, like socialists everywhere, he can't quite take the blame for his idiocy and can't quite recognize socialism for the scam that it is. This fool is still mired in his self-destructive Marxist ideology. Bad habits are hard to break and genuinely own up to, or so it appears. In any event, his end is mercifully near.

Word of advice to Venezuelans: this time embrace capitalism and individual responsibility, not life-sapping socialism. In the end, free government giveaways are poison. Let's hope you've learned your lesson. Of course, this is a lesson for American socialists to learn as well, but, alas, stupid is as stupid does.

What Happened to Constitutional Rule of Law?

Our judicial system is a disgrace.

In law school, ever wonder how many lawyers & jurists are required to study the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other original foundational documents? (Afterall, to properly drive a car, doesn't one have to possess at least a general understanding how the car operates and, very importantly, the rules of the road?) 

Thus, one would logically think that, at the very least, the careful study of original documents would fully consume the first year of law school. No? I mean, after all, our law's origin is supposed to be these foundational documents. Right? However, from all I've read and heard, a paltry 1% of law school grads--at best--understand the foundations of our law. 

In truth, many of us layman are very likely more knowledgeable about original meaning and intent than most lawyers. It's the lawyers' ritualized "legal process" and the maze of errant laws which give attorneys an edge over us. 

My guess is that those one percenters who, one way or the other, learned something about our founding principles most likely familiarized themselves with those founding documents during their free time--not as part of their classroom instruction. (So, though badly outnumbered, we must be thankful for that 1%, wherever they may be hiding.) 

Given this scenario, is there any wonder why our legal system has strayed so far from the Constitution and the Rule of Law? Today's legal eagles are taught "case law" and how to win arguments, the be-all-end-all, the bread and butter of modern jurisprudence, which, over the years, has served to routinely contradict, violate and further erode the importance of our Constitution's original meaning & intent. Most lawyerly types and jurists are simply blind to, ignorant or dismissive of those all-important rules of the road. From all I've observed, it's a good ol' boy fraternity of income-driven legal competitors, implacable enemies in court and drinking buddies afterwards. For most, it is a game dictated by fabricated rules of the road. Add self-serving political and ideological agendas to this toxic brew, and what we end up with is a faithless, whimsical "living constitution" which enshrines revisionist interpretations and misapplications of the law which further hasten our Constitution's slide into irrelevance and, ultimately, oblivion. End product: Rule by Man, not Rule of Law. And that's where we are today. Tragic.

Any wonder why so much chaos, dysfunction and tyranny both at the Federal AND State level. Lesson learned: when one no longer refers to the road map or GPS, one inevitably gets lost.

Beware the "Convention of States" Scam

For those out there who are still fervently pushing for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as framer George Mason unambiguously observed, "the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution"--NOT to re-rewrite the Constitution--a dangerous undertaking to which too many, inclusive of Mark Levin, are wittingly or unwittingly fostering.
Also this quote from deceased Justice Scalia: "I certainly would not want an [Article V] Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa! Who knows what would come of that?"
Comprised of delegates from the several States and enjoined by their respective State leaders to only revise the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 didn't revise the Articles; in secret proceedings the delegates literally created an entirely new Constitution. OK, so we dodged the bullet that time and the Constitution these disobedient delegates created well-served the nation--well until the War Between the States in 1861 which turned the Constitution on its head.(But that's another story. for another time.)
Thus, given the terribly divisive ideological divide and powerfully influential interest groups plaguing this republic today, dare we jeopardize the Constitution with another Convention to "amend the Constitution"? Or would these State delegates do what some of the Art V Convention of States disciples have already demonstrated they would be willing to do, that being to re-write the Constitution and, in the process, even legalize federal usurpations against which we've all been resisting? Rather than cutting the feds down to Constitutional size and crafting amendments with that single purpose in mind, some of the COS-proposed amendments I've reviewed demonstrably enshrine violations of the existing Constitution! Frankly, I was incredulous. Check it out.( Also, for starters please check out Publius Huldah blog and CAAVC sites for some erudite discussions on this issue.) Even among patriotic originalists there are gaping disagreements about the desirability and efficacy of an Art V Convention of States whose product could well end up doing us more harm than good. Would love to have you weigh in.

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Chief Justice Roberts, Interim "Swing Voter"?

So, when Justice Kennedy is retired, and until a bona fide originalist Justice is seated on the bench, in the interim will Chief Justice Roberts assume the "swing voter" role? Strange question? I don't think so.
In view his reckless decision to uphold Obamacare's blatantly unconstitutional "individual mandate", one should properly question the consistency of his originalist cred. That decision was an ignominious violation of the Constitution, and most of us know it.
So, what explains Roberts's considerably less than textual, aka conservative, approach to the Constitution? Or, said another way, what explains his unreliable adherence to the Constitution's original meaning and intent?
According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, for whom I have great respect, “Roberts is a conservative, but he is an institutionalist. He believes deeply in the Supreme Court.” I had suspected this long ago, but this is the first time a constitutional scholar has validated that suspicion. If entirely true, this isn't at all reassuring, folks. To me, that means one thing: because of his seemingly overriding respect for the institution itself, then, by extension, Roberts adheres to the destructive doctrine of "judicial supremacy" vs "Constitutional Supremacy", the former a toxic Progressive doctrine which, since the mid-19th century, has resulted in the Court's nearly relentless infidelity to the Constitution.
Again, as Turley points out, "Roberts "believes deeply in the Supreme Court." If we could be assured of his more consistent devotion to the Constitution, I'd feel a helluva lot safer. But, since the guy has given me scant reason to trust him, let's hope a genuine guardian America's first principles is confirmed very soon.

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Are We Headed for a Second "Civil War"?

Many continue to repeat this obvious fallacy: given the cultural and political polarity existing in the country today as well as the growing aggressiveness of the Left, a "second civil war" may well occur.

Folks, there wasn't a first "civil war", so how could there be a second? 

The purposely misnamed "American Civil War" (1861-1865) was not--NOT-- a civil war at all. It was a war of secession. For it to have been a bona fide "civil war" both sides would have been vying for complete political control of the country. Historically, that's what civil wars have always been about. Unlike the North which sought political control over the country, both north and south, the Confederate States of America did not seek political dominance. Opting to peacefully withdraw the union, it sought complete INDEPENDENCE only, which mirrors the secessionist aspirations of the American colonies in 1775 when they opted to secede from England in order to establish their own nation. 

That said, what do you suppose the Demonrats want today? Total political and cultural control over the country. And if they resort to violence and/or arms to achieve that end, and if patriots resist them in kind, then, yes, America will experience it's first civil war.

"Abortion Rights": Progressive Ideology vs the US Constitution

Assailed by the frenetic Leftist claim that with the appointment of another originalist to the Supreme Court abortion will be suddenly and cruelly rendered illegal, what these Progressives don't seem to understand--or conveniently ignore--is that the addition of a Justice who will faithfully adhere to his/her Art III duty will more likely result in the Court's rendering opinions which more closely comport with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution--NOT allegiance to unconstitutional, arbitrary Progressive ideological biases. That means that Roe vs Wade, WILDLY and arbitrarily unconstitutional, will and should be overturned. Would that mean "the end of federally-created "abortion rights"? Absolutely!!! Why? Because there is no such federal or Constitutional "right". PERIOD. At that point, the 10th Amendment will kick in:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People".
In other words, like motorcycle helmets, defining marriage, controlling education and a nearly infinite number of other undefined powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, will be properly re-assumed by the individual States. SO, if, say, Alabama outlaws abortion, a person would need to move to or travel to a State which legally condones abortion. That's the way our Founders expected this to work--the so-called "laboratory of the States". A US Citizen is able to vote with his/her feet.
In the years ahead, I strongly suspect that the definition of marriage, a power never ever granted to the federal government by the Constitution, will similarly devolve to the individual States where that power--and so many others which have been usurped by the federal government--properly resides.
It isn't supposed to be about emotions, advancing political dogmas, arbitrarily creating rights out of whole cloth, or personal feelings and biases. It is always supposed to be about the LAW. If you want an abortion or marry a goat, go to it, so long as it is in keeping with the supreme law of the land, that being the Constitution, and so long as it fully comports with the laws of your State. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution!

Friday, June 29, 2018

Supreme Court Infidelity IS The Problem

Now that Justice Kennedy, the "swing voter" on the court (meaning the Justice who at least SOMETIMES understands and applies original meaning), has opted to retire (no more irresponsible appointments like Sotomayor or Ginsberg, please) perhaps the number of deeply troubling 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court will, more appropriately, be less narrow. More to the point, with the addition of judges to the bench who are more faithful to the Constitution--a tall order finding such an endangered species these days--perhaps SCOTUS decisions in the future will more appropriately and faithfully reflect the actual meaning of the Constitution--and not the individual Justices' social engineering and big government predilections.
Over the years, and as we are all at least viscerally aware, SCOTUS and the lower federal courts have managed to COMPLETELY mangle and misrepresent our Founders' clear meaning and intent. That is unacceptable and MUST be remedied.
Compounding the damage wrought by faithless federal judges is the flawed doctrine of "stare decisis" which dominates modern legal thinking. This erosive doctrine serves only to exacerbate the courts' impeccable faithlessness to the Constitution by enshrining flawed case law atop previously flawed case law--a dangerous practice, indeed. This practice merely serves to further distance the Justices and the American people from the Constitution. In short, this doctrine and the Justices' subjectivity and faithlessness are antithetical to their sacred Art III duty to accurately and studiously interpret the Constitution. As a result of all this revisionism and faithlessness, the federal courts have, with impunity, brazenly and ruinously usurped both State and Individual authority and rights and have firmly placed our republic on the road to authoritarianism. In truth, and in the face of this judicial recklessness, the only thing holding the country together in this post-constitutional period is the American people's lingering and illusory belief that we are still a constitutional republic of Laws and Justice. Not very reassuring, is it.
Of the three federal branches--and as Thomas Jefferson warned long ago--the Supreme Court, arbitrary and capricious to its core, has evolved into the most faithless and oppressive. Since the 19th century, most Justices have increasingly and incrementally taken on the wholly alien roles of infallible and essentially deified Delphic Oracles, an incongruent role which has blinded us to the reality that Justices are but fallible mortals whose actions are too often dictated by personal whim and ideological bias . And in a constitutional republic, such a threatening level of infidelity is the kiss of death.
When we consider how best to fix the myriad foundational problems facing this republic, we'd best get beyond wasting our efforts clashing with the symptoms which, of course, are plentiful. The biggest root source of tyranny today really is the faithless Supreme Court and our subversive education system, the latter which creates millions of citizens who are dangerously ignorant of our founding principles and deferential to Supreme Court infidelity. Not because we value infidelity, but because most of us have never even read the Constitution or other founding documents. As Thomas Jefferson counseled, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Ultimately, therefore, We the People, inarguably the final arbiters in any legitimate constitutional republic, are responsible for ensuring that the Supreme Court and all other branches of the federal government, our servants, uphold their oath of office and consistent faithfulness to the Constitution, failing which I refer you to the Declaration of Independence for your serious consideration.