Liberty For All (http://www.libertyforall.net/) apparently wants only polite ‘libertarians’ to comment on their site.
That’s fine with me, except that the site is misnamed. It should be captioned “Liberty for the Right Folks - the rest of you can shut the fuck up.”
Candy Ass!
I guess I just don’t understand anything… Is the Constitution (or are the constitutions) written in Martian?
If they are written in english, then I really don’t understand. The way I read it (the us constitution), people are represented. Not things, not organizations, not financial interests or corporations - people.
In my admittedly inadequate understanding, this conclusion is stated directly by Article I Section 2, where it states that: “… Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, …”.
If members of congress (house of representatives or senate) were actually authorized to represent someone other than the people, then the constitution would identify and quantify that representation, would it not? Well, it would in a world where logic, reason common sense and the English language prevailed.
We don’t need to spend any more time considering the possibility that congress owes any duty - or has any authority - to act in the interests of corporations, PACs, groups, other nations, or extra-constitutional agreements (treaties which conflict with the constitution, or diminish the rights of the people).
So, the next question is, how do these artificial persons get the ‘right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’? That’s the first amendment’s final phrase, but the constitution provides limits on government and protections for the rights of people (the ones who are entitled to choose their ‘representatives’).
By the way, how is it a ‘grievance’ that your company isn’t making enough money?
Just call me Mick the Martian - I don’t get it!
The way I see it, now, if corporations had the rights of voters (representation, petition, assembly, bear arms, due process etc.) - they would be as powerless as you and I are. When was the last time the US Army came to your aid when a business deal of yours went south? Oh, of course, that assumes facts not in evidence - doesn’t it?
Isn’t that interesting? The people, who are protected and guaranteed rights by the constitution (rights which, by the way, preceded the constitution) have the power to be taxed and audited by the government for the benefit of those who are not represented and protected by it. Does that seem upside down to you?
It must be all that justice that oozes out of the Department of Justice, the SEC, the SIPC and all the other agencies which protected us from the massive banking and financing fraud which we are told we will be taxed to ‘bail out’ again and again and again. The fumes of justice remind me of the fumes from something else…
That’s the fun of equality. You start out equal - to the rest of the peasants, and you stay right there, but you may get a nice TV along the way, if you’re a good Toby.
Sometimes A PIG IS JUST A pig.
Sometimes just taking a few moments to think about something can be more enlightening than reading dozens of opinions and explanations and ‘interpretations’ of it.
For example, Article 6, paragraph (clause) 2 of the federal constitution. I have noticed lately that when I hear a commentator or expert on television or radio discuss it (as rare as that is), almost always, it is stated, directly, that this allows congress to oblige all of the people in this land to obey the provisions of any treaty that they decide to sign or enact.
Not so fast, feces breath… (No links will be provided for this and no written authority cited, as it is a most prevalent and widely accepted premise. However, as Rand admonished us: check your premises.)
The people who wrote it (and I consider them to have been part of the people who ratified it, through the state conventions) had just suffered through a costly and bloody war. Whether they were black hearted heathens or pure hearted saints, they had fought for, and won, independence.
Does anybody expect me to believe that the number one priority (or precedence given by the article) would be to embody, in law, a method by which the entirety of those freedoms could be surrendered?
I may have been born yesterday, but I think my reading skills are better than that.
Here is what the Article (part 2 of Article 6) says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. …”
It is clear from the leading phrase that it is only law which is made ‘in pursuance’ of the constitution, are supreme law. It follows that the treaties, referred to in the second phrase, are to be made(also) pursuant to the constitution, according to the founders/authors and the ratifiers.
We know that the purpose of the constitution is to limit the government and, primarily. to protect the rights of the people. Pursuant to those purposes, how could it be argued that an agreement with a foreign government - which is not intended to do either or both of those things - could possibly be ’supreme law’?
As unpleasant as it seems to be (to some people), words have meanings. The constitution is not written in Martian, nor was it intended to protect the rights of Martians. It may not have gone far enough in protecting the rights of citizens, and it may have fallen short of encompassing all of the people in its original form, but plainly, it was not intended as a mechanism for inverting and nullifying the great achievement of the rebels and founders - FREEDOM.
I suggest that we remember this whenever we hear this kind of bullshit - whether it comes from a Harvard Professor or an illiterate loafer. Freedom is NOT bullshit and bullshit is not law.
So, anything done which is contrary to the constitution, or contrary to the purpose of the constitution, is not law.
See:
Norton v. Shelby Co.118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886) wherein it was held that: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection, it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (”An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”).
And if it’s not law, we are not bound by it in any way.
check out this editorial on Taki’s Front Page about the new ‘car czar‘.
A man is known by the friends he keeps. This one should probably be kept in a pen.
When media stars and office holders tell you to ‘look forward and not backward’ or claim to be doing that, what they actually mean is ‘listen to the myth I am spinning for you and pay no attention to the recent past’.
The trouble is, the only real evidence of the prospects for the future they claim to be creating for you is - exactly - the past they want you to ignore.
For example, our future, in spite of what the current administration says, seems to promise torture and duress for political prisoners. Who knows how long it will take for the militarized police forces to adopt some of the ’stress and duress’ techniques of Bagram Air Base?
Our history of law, relying as it has on rights protected (not created) by the constitutions (such as the 5th and 6th amendments), specifically protects us from compulsion, coercion and duress. It provides for us to counsel each other and to obtain counsel and advice from our own choice of assistants.
This is the kind of thing that separated us from the less enlightened, less free, and less advanced civilizations of the world. It is also the way in which property and other rights are protected. That, more than anything else, I think, is why individuals prospered and lived freely.
I guess though, in order to have better DVD players and ‘free’ health care, we should just pitch all that in the trash and sign up for the new movement…
I’m looking forward to my next interrogation, aren’t you?
On a related topic (corruption and hubris in government) Justin Raimondo nails it in this piece. Here’s a short excerpt:
“In a better world, a member of Congress caught on tape agreeing to obstruct justice at the request of an agent of a foreign power would have stepped down as soon as the news hit the headlines. In our shameless era, however, that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the spies will get off, Israel will continue to steal us blind, and a trial that would have shocked the American people and portrayed Israel in a far more realistic light than our news media dares will never take place.
How’s that for change we can believe in?”
Don’t look backward at freedom, because you won’t like what you see when you turn around.
That’s what Senator Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota, *) wants to do.
This was her response to a caller on CSPAN Washington Journal this morning to a caller who asked why the people should trust congress to ‘fix’ our financial problems after their utter failure and complicity in the failures of financial institutions.
As soon as she started to speak, it was plain that she was offended by the question, but the contempt she felt, betrayed by her expression and the stacatto verbal attack, is a common tell (gambler’s term for unintentional self-betrayal) among those who rule.
This same indignance shows in Barney Frank when he is seriously questioned about the twins (Freddie and Fannie). The offending caller specifically referred to Barney as one of the complicit malfeasants in his statement.
So, Ms. Klobuchar reminded the audience that she is a former prosecutor. I suppose that is intended to show how seriously she takes the law. She proposes to write new laws so that ‘people like Bernie Madoff…’ can’t get away with ’stealing’ money through fraud etc. etc. blather blather.
I guess somebody forgot to tell her that stealing and fraud have been illegal since long before we were blessed with her birth.
Where did she go to law school?
from Ilana Mercer’s blog: “Pure democracy is a form of ethical nihilism. Not sure where that comes from—Rousseau probably—but voting is like trying to stop a hurricane with your breath. The main function of voting is to give big government an excuse to push you around. The thugs always have the trump card as we hear constantly now: we won the election!” (James Ostrowski)
This morning on Fox News Sunday with US Senator Claire McCaskill, with respect the subject of the Bush Administration’s torture guidelines authors (Bybee, head of the OLC) - who has been appointed as a Federal Judge, the Senator declared that we should just forget about the past. The question related to impeaching the judge or at least starting an inquiry into the allegations of criminal behavior.
That’s okay, that he committed felonies when he worked for Bush (if he did), because we ’shouldn’t live in the past’. Oh yes, we MUST go forward into the 21st century, mustn’t we? It just wouldn’t ‘do’ to prosecute criminals, why, if we started doing that, where would it end? Indeed.
Ostrowski is correct, you may as well fart into a hurricane as to expect the democrat and republican incumbents to pursue justice for the people.
*** update ***
Glenn Greenwald wrote about this yesterday, see the post here - here’s a quote: “What a vibrant, spirited debate that was. And the way they all harmoniously recite the same White House Orwellian script — look to the glorious future, citizens, for that is where your salvation lies — is almost as creepy as the OLC torture memos themselves. ”
*** end update ***
On the other hand, all that is external, as important and tragic as it is. A life in which we are constantly exposed to this caustic and unpleasant shite will eventually become one which creates unpeasantness itself.
Whatever it is that makes your life tolerable or fun, or pleasant should not be surrendered to the pursuit of these rascals, especially if you haven’t the power to effect a change. Here is one possibility of effecting change: NY. This is a closely related to an idea for prosecuting senators and congressmen/women for denying the citizens equal protection of the law (a federal felony) under color of law. The specifics of this (theory) are that it is a denial of our right to equal representation to entertain (or be entertained by) lobbyists and campaign contributors.
The reason this is a violation of our rights is that the sworn duty of these people is to represent their constituents. Yet they actually represent the people who buy their influence.
Less easy to prove than to say, nevertheless, this is the truth and their is support for it in the law. The biggest problem with executing the plan is that the court system(s) have alienated the citizens completely out of the process (via rules, associations, court ‘officers’ and private clubs). What used to be a forum for citizens to redress grievances has become entirely privately controlled - almost.
So, if a civil suit or a criminal case can be successfully prosecuted against any one of them, a brick out of the wall, so to speak, the wall will be torn down. It’s too late to recover a lot of our money, but our rights can be recovered, and with them, each of us, separately and together, can build a better way.
If some of these bastards turn out to be guilty of capital crimes (treason, adulteration of money etc.) - so be it. We’re a long way from having to consider that burden. And perhaps, death and blood is not going to distract us (assuming ‘we’ ever get to square one…).
After all, most times in history, war turns out to be as costly for the winners as the losers, and ultimately, the real winners are the ones who profit from it: I should not have to point out that a MAJOR fraction of the entirety of government spending in the united states is awarded to companies that profit from war.
At any rate, while we all wait for the white knight to ride in and save us from the hell of mediocre politicians selling our property and our rights for their own comfort and erecting a society of surveillance and control with which to perpetuate our misery, we should be able to enjoy a little music.
I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago and a Stan Getz tune, ‘Ebony Samba’ (here’s a different version of the tune). I don’t know who the guitarist was in the Getz version, probably Luiz Bonfa, it was a nylon string guitar. It is not possible (at least for me) to describe the experience adequately. It was important to me because it reminded me instantly of my long lost friend Tony. After a few moments, it also brough tback memories of my father and my brother and other family members I shall never see again.
Tony introduced me to ‘jazz’ (I hate that word) when we worked together, a long time ago. We went to a club in South Boston (Lulu White’s) to hear Getz live. He played for about 5 hours with a couple of short breaks. Just the real thing, no crap, no advertising, no panhandling or shilling.
After listening to a little more Stan Getz, I returned to my playing, a little more sensitive than just before hearing it.
Play (at whatever you do) until you can’t, and enjoy your friends and family.
And if those idiots won’t leave you alone, do us all a favor and lose one or two of them - in a lawful manner if at all possible.
Cute eh?
from a column by Peter Schiff - “Obama claims that much of the additional debt is not going to finance consumption, but rather “critical investment”. This is a vain hope. In the first place, much of what he categorizes as investment, such as additional spending on education, is not investment at all. Yes, an educated workforce is important, but throwing more government money at education will do nothing to achieve this goal. Spending money on education and calling it an investment squanders resources that otherwise would have financed real investments.”
Is ‘investment’ a constitutional function of government?
Invest: “to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.”
The constitution (federal) doesn’t seem to provide for this. The constitution of my state (NH) doesn’t provide for this. So, this is not a constitutional ‘duty’ or responsibility or function of government at either level.
However, since the government makes the rules (the regulation of financial markets, interstate commerce, import and export etc. etc.), it would seem to me that the advantage would be overwhelmingly in favor of profit and success.
So why do they still need to collect taxes from us - if they are so good at it? And, why is it that (it is reputed) social security is so inadequate to sustain retirees through their ‘golden’ years? Wouldn’t you think, if having the government ‘investing’ for us was effective, that we would have noticed the benefit by now?
Oh, yes, and by the way; wouldn’t these wise investors make sure that the markets continued to function well (as planned) under their control? I must be dreaming (a nightmare) about the Wall Street bailouts and bank failures.
Good job guys! Maybe we could all go to work for you and then you could ‘invest’ all our money… What? It would not require all our money to pad your nests? That’s okay, why don’t you come and get it anyway? You never know when a friend of your yours will have a great idea. We obviously don’t know what to do with all of it. Look who we trusted with it.
Bring your most persuasive line of bullshit because: “We’re as mad as hell, and we’re not going to give it anymore!”. Oh wait, I am dreaming 
Rank: (grossly coarse, vulgar, or indecent: from)
Perhaps nothing is as revolting as criminal who, having just robbed you, politely requesting more of your money and/or property. By criminal I mean (possibly - I don’t know - it’s just a hunch - I guess - an irresponsible twitch of irrationality I suppose…) the pigs who just pulled off the greatest ‘bank job’ in history.
Having witnessed only the end game or unravelling of the knot, through the prism of TV and mainstream media news, I suppose I may be ‘misundertanding’ it all.
Vile: (synonym for rank) - in this application of the term, reserved to identify the army of congressional servants who signed ‘laws’ into effect and abdicated oversight of the bank job for a very long time. Vile, because they pretend to be doing teh people’s work and they participated in the crime by enabling it.
Cute: (Obviously contrived to charm; precious: from) Barney Frank. Ain’t he though?
Sorry, out of cute today.
Admittedly, this is low-hanging fruit, but jeeeeeez! Can’t we start somewhere?
Let’s convene the hearing.
How can you turn lead into gold?
That’s what a lot of people think they can do, by changing the composition of the government. By adding a freedom-minded person here and there, and making incremental changes, they hope to restore or reform the government.
That’s a good way to turn gold into lead. By adulteration, all that can be accomplished is the ruin of your gold. After joining the incumbents in hometown, state central or federal government, they become, over time, part of the problem.
Through compromise (adulteration), the libertarians and other freedom minded people who go there join the crowd. After a while, protecting the compromised positions they achieve and reelection (to continue making progress) drive them to the money and maneuvering that characterizes the incumbent (useless as tits on a bull) characters that have overseen the transition from neighborhood banks to Goldman Sachs and the other shredders.
Truly, there are exceptions, Ron Paul for one. Perhaps because he is so exceptional, there is evidence to believe that it is possible, perhaps just that the exception proves the rule.
Car Wash Libertarians (I adopt that from Karen DeCoster): they can really shake things up at rally or a meeting. Cab a few libertarians change the course of history?
Is it better to use the lead for another purpose? I wouldn’t send the gold to Washington. You won’t even get a thank you note for it. But it could be used to produce more of the same tyranny and mindless goop that oozes out of that place already. This is not a ‘good use of resources’.
Also, firing the lead into the goop is pretty useless. You may disturb a small amount of goop, but the blob is too big to be seriously affected by shooting it. I think it needs to be starved out, hopefully before it eats all of us.
Alchemy, like superstition, is not a worthwhile enterprise. Invention is a different matter altogether.
Rich