Thursday, September 3, 2015

Ignoring the law a liberal trait

Liberals are screaming about the fact that  Kentucky clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays.

Given that the people of Kentucky voted to ban gay marriage and that the Supreme Court's ruling in the words of Chief Justice Roberts is unconstitutional:

"The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."

why would anyone think that the Supreme Courts ruling should be obeyed?

The reality is that liberals are all for people not following the law so long as liberals don't like the law.  

Liberals support sanctuary cities where immigration laws are not enforced.

Obama and Holder refused to enforce DOMA.

Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8.

The list goes on. Liberals make a habit of ignoring laws they don't like but they are appalled when others follow their lead.

The reality is that liberals are the new monarchists. They believe themselves to be above the law, which is why Hillary thought she could put classified information on an insecure server.

But because they are tyrants at heart they believe that they and only they can, with impunity, make up laws--such as the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage-- and ignore laws the don't like--such as DOMA.

Liberals are the enemy of America not only because they want to bring in millions of illegals to steal jobs from Blacks and let rich liberal pay low wages but because liberals oppose the very idea of Democracy and the rule of law.

Monday, August 31, 2015

On Deportation; A modest proposal

See the article on American Thinker here.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Anchor babies and the Constitution

Liberals endorse the concept of the “living” Constitution that says that the meaning of the Constitution evolves as society changes.

As would be expected these liberals believe that only rich unelected liberal judges are capable of discerning just how the Constitution has magically evolved.  Unsurprisingly all the changes that liberals see in the Constitution support liberal views.

We see that in the current debate over “anchor” babies.  After all it’s clear that there was no intent by the Americans who passed the 14th Amendment to legalize any baby whose mother managed to enter the US just long enough to give birth.  If that had been the case it wouldn’t have taken until 1924 for Congress to pass a law making Native Americans citizens. The objective of the 14th Amendment’s authors is very clear; ending the denial of civil rights to Black Americans by Democrat politicians in the South.

While supporters of the living Constitution declare that the Constitution must change with changing social situations for some reason many of the changes-- such as abortion and so called gay “marriage”-- have been unable to garner the support of the voters. That leads to the paradoxical situation of liberals declaring the Constitution has to change because society has changed when society has specifically rejected at the ballot box those changes liberals declare have occurred.

The reality is that when liberals say that the Constitution has to change to reflect changing times and values they mean changing liberal values not changing values on the part of the people as a whole.

We can see this in the abortion and gay “marriage” cases.  In the case of abortion the Supreme Courts view of the “living” Constitution overthrew the laws of all 50 states, including the most liberal ones.  Not even in liberal New York State had society embraced abortion at any time before birth and for any reason.  In fact today, over 40 years later, only about one quarter of Americans endorse the Supreme Courts position.  Clearly the Court was not reflecting the views of society in its discovery of abortion rights in the “living” Constitution.

The gay “marriage” case is even clearer. California, a hot bed of liberalism, had resoundingly voted to reject gay “marriage” as had many other states. Clearly society had not yet decided that gay “marriage” was a good thing but the liberals on the Supreme Court went with the liberal consensus and revised the meaning of the Constitution, which does not mention marriage.

In the case of immigration the situation might actually reflect the criteria espoused by liberals but in the exact opposite direction to what liberals want.  Ignoring for a moment the obvious historical intent of the 14th Amendment it’s unclear if Americans cared about the Courts revision at the time it occurred back in 1982.  However today it’s clear that most Americans don’t believe that sneaking across the border and then getting a free taxpayer paid for delivery in an American hospital confers citizenship on the criminal’s child.

Under the concept of the living Constitution however even if the intention of the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had been to grant citizenship to the children of illegals the changing societal consensus should lead the Court to declare that children of illegals are not citizens.

However since the whole “living” Constitution concept is merely a verbal sham to provide plausible deniability for judges engaged in rampant illegal and unconstitutional judicial law making none of the supporters of the “living” Constitution are arguing that the changing societal consensus on babies born to illegals means that the Constitution has  changed.

Interestingly the Framers believed in a truly living Constitution that reflected the will of the people.  Recognizing that over time the US might change the Framers provided a way for the people, as opposed to a few unelected rich and mostly white judges, to determine what the Constitution should mean.  That process to amend and update the Constitution has been used on multiple occasions to fix problems where there was a change in societal consensus such as the ending the denial of civil rights by Democrat politicians to blacks, the right of women to vote, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.

The 14th Amendment is a great example of how the Constitution was amended to reflect the changing societal consensus that recognized that Blacks are just as human as whites. While that attitude has taken a much longer time to be accepted in the Democrat run South—change not occurring until the South became Republican—the 14th Amendment reflected the change in American society as a whole.

However liberals, bruised by the defeat of the so-called “equal” rights amendment, decided that it’s really too much bother to have to have the “living” Constitution follow the people.  Instead the Constitution is to be used as a battering ram to change the societal consensus by redefining what is legal.

Liberals know that many Americans tend to equate moral truth with legality and hence by changing the Constitution liberals know that over time they can change attitudes.

This practice is similar to that used by Muslims to convert the masses of non-Muslims that were conquered by Muslim invaders.  Make the law endorse something and condemn something else and over time the less committed people will change their views. While the coercion used by liberals has not historically been on par with Sharia law the recent drive to deny Christians who oppose gay “marriage” and abortion the right to own businesses shows that liberals are stepping up their game.

In the end those who say that the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals is not in the Constitution are 100% correct if one looks at what the Constitution actually says.

But even if one denies that then the doctrine of the “living “ Constitution, as it’s articulated as opposed to how it’s implemented, tells us that the Constitution clearly rejects the concept of citizenship for the children of illegals.

In fact if one is a true believer in the concept of the “living” Constitution one has to condemn the rigid and historical intent based reasoning of the Court in upholding citizenship for the children of illegals.

Of course as on most issues liberals don’t actually believe in what they say. Rather they use words in an Orwellian way to disguise their extremist anti-populist agenda.

When discussing this issue with people point out that whether one uses original intent or one uses the concept of the “living” Constitution the result is that the children of illegals are not citizens according to the Constitution.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Friday, August 21, 2015

The Big Constitutional Lie

The other night Bill O’Reilly repeated the Big Lie about the Constitution; namely that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says.

In all fairness it’s clear Bill wasn’t intentionally lying. Rather he was espousing a philosophy that has crept into the mainstream of American thought since the 1960s.

At first glance the idea that the Supreme Court has to decide on Constitutionality makes sense but a simple question will show that the idea has serious problems.

Does anyone think if the Supreme Court judges were clones of Thomas or Scalia we’d have seen abortion legalized, same sex marriage mandated, or ObamaCare’s fees turned into taxes?  Yet if we know that the definition of what is “Constitutional” depends on men not the law and that definition changes with a changing of the guard on the Court we have to acknowledge that the Court is an unelected political, not judicial, body.

It’s precisely because liberal Justices are biased that every nomination to the Supreme Court is a huge political war; people know the liberal Judges aren’t really interpreting the Constitution in light of the intent of the folks who wrote or passed it but rather in light of what they would like America to be.

Jefferson pointed out this precise problem when he wrote:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves

Historically the Court took on an imperial role in the 1960’s creating rights and warping the Constitution to fit the member’s liberal perspectives.

Imperial is a valid description since it’s nearly impossible to overturn a decision by the Court, unless different judges are put in place.

However impeaching a judge is nearly impossible unless both parties hate them thereby guaranteeing lifetime sinecures for liberal judges no matter how off the wall their decisions might be.  Similarly changing the Constitution is a huge process that can take decades and is hardly a viable mechanism to counteract 60 minutes of work by a liberal majority on the Court.

The Big Constitutional Lie(BCL) is bad because it makes Americans think that we were intended to live in a society where 5 rich lawyers can completely change society as they please so long as they invoke the magic word Constitutional.

When the Court has completely changed American culture the people, who tend to be law abiding, have presumed that the Court was acting honestly and gone along with it. That’s why the legalization of pornography and abortion were met with relatively little response; people believed the BCL.

But it’s time to confront the BCL and listen to what Abraham Lincoln said in his first Inaugural address:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Over most of the history of the US the Supreme Court Judges tried to adhere to the intent of the Framers and the actual wording of the Constitution but that has changed.

Lawyers have been lured by the sweet scent of power to embrace the concept of the Constitution as a “living” document. By that they mean that unelected Judges and the lawyers who bring cases to the Court can change the intent and meaning of the Constitution without having to bother with the messy task of actually convincing the American people.

The liberal judges on the Supreme Court adhere to the idea of a “living Constitution” that they can mold to fit their view of what America should be.

For example judge Ginsberg said:

"It's intended to be looked at in the context of contemporary events, in the context of history, in the context of past precedent, and the intent of the framers. Put all those things together and hopefully what you get is the right answer to some perplexing issue that the court is confronting,"

She also said:

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” 
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.” 

Clearly when Judge Marshall defended judicial review in Marbury v Madison he was not thinking of Justices who thought the Constitution was a badly written document that didn’t do a good job at embracing basic human rights.

To see the hypocrisy of the liberal position let’s look at a hypothetical situation.  Suppose that a Democrat run Congress had passed a law requiring President Bush to remove troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. Bush then sent more troops to Iraq saying that the quickest way to get the troops out was to defeat the insurgents and that required more troops. No liberal would support a Supreme Court that sided with Bush and ignored the intent of Congress yet those same liberals gleefully support the idea of freeing the Supreme Court from the “shackles” of original intent when the judges rulings impose abortion or same sex marriage on America.

Given that the Court is clearly no longer an impartial body honestly striving to adhere to the intent of the Framers Americans have to realize that our freedom is being stolen.

Liberals use the Supreme Court to impose their policies without getting the consent of the people thereby essentially making the US a country where power resides not in the people but in the lawyers and judges. That effectively repeals the American Revolution.  After all how is an unelected appointed for life King George imposing an arbitrary law any different than an unelected appointed for life Supreme Court imposing an arbitrary law?

How we can restore the Supreme Court to an impartial body is a very thorny question in light of liberals rejection of the rule of law the first step we can take is to refute and reject the BCL.

An exercise of raw judicial power does not define what the Constitution says it only defines what the law is. The difference is that the Constitution, viewed in the light of the Framers, is unchanging where as the rulings of the Court can change whenever the ideology of the majority changes.

When Americans realize that the Supreme Court is not an honest broker but a radicalized revolutionary agent of change many, but sadly not all, will recognize the danger.

We need to change the American attitude of viewing the Supreme Court as an infallible source of truth as a first step in what will be a long process of remaking the Court into an impartial agent intent on ensuring that the laws of the land are followed.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Double Standard

Can you imagine the howls of the liberals if it were to turn out that President Bush had maintained his own private email server for official government business--including emails that contained classified data-- and that he'd deleted all the "personal" emails without giving the government a chance to review them?

Yet those same liberals are all cool with what Hillary's done.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Fast cars slow ocean

The Pope on immigration; the real story.

Sources are saying that the Pope equated rejecting immigrants with murder; that's not at all what he said. Check here for the real story.