Tag Archives: Constitution

Raise Up For Us Wise Judges

16 ויקם יהוה שפטים ויושיעום מיד שסיהם׃ 17 וגם אל שפטיהם לא שמעו כי זנו אחרי אלהים אחרים וישתחוו להם סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר הלכו אבותם לשמע מצות יהוה לא עשו כן׃ 18 וכי הקים יהוה להם שפטים והיה יהוה עם השפט והושיעם מיד איביהם כל ימי השופט כי ינחם יהוה מנאקתם מפני לחציהם ודחקיהם׃ ~~ Shoftim 2:16-18

16 Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so. 18 Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them.~~Judges 2:16-18

Judges have been in the news a lot lately. For instance the hearing on Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

Several of the same senators who helped unanimously confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006 are now railing against his nomination by President Trump to the highest court in the land.

But I suppose it really didn’t matter who President Trump picked, the Demoncrats planned to protest and showed up with pre-printed signs to do so. But as is pointed out, since they didn’t know WHO he was going to nominate, the just left the spot for the name blank and filled it in with a magic marker.

Well, that certainly sends a clear message you are standing firmly on principle!

Then we have the left wing courts in Israel that resulted in Jewish families being thrown from their homes, for the second time, because of questionable evidence from a left-wing group based on questionable laws. Or questionable patchwork of laws perhaps.

Then you could have your life ruined by the ruling of a left-wing court like Elor Azariya.

If ever there has been a time our countries could use some wise judges, now would be good. For some reason, people think it is fine now to riot, destroy personal property and physically attack people in the name of “peaceful protest”. I saw a meme on Facebook that said “Love Trumping Hate involves a lot more arson and assault than I expected”.

For some reason, groups of people, large groups of people, have reckoned it is safe for them to do these sorts of things. It’s fine for them to block roads, attack people and vehicles with no consequences. Well, not to them anyway. The people they attack, they aren’t so much worried about. It’s bad enough that some states and proposing legislation that basically, says if you accidentally kill a protester you will not be prosecuted.

But these protesters only want what’s best for humanity, the environment and think President Trump will ruin the world and they care so much about every living being?

Horse feathers.

Yet another mob of around 200 people blocked another ambulance necessitating the EMS crew to perform in the field a procedure that is normally done in the hospital. The police attempted to move the leader off the road so the ambulance could get through. He refused. The comments under the article are interesting, some commenting that in certain cities the Judges would let him off without even a fine. Have you seen some of the videos of masses of people swelling up onto freeways? They don’t care what kind of wrecks they create when people try to avoid hitting them. They don’t care about the people their actions may kill. I can see why different states are talking about such laws. Police have been told to stand down by ideological politicians and Judges have not followed the law.

Being a Judge is a big responsibility. You have the lives of innocent people in your hands. Ruth Bader Gargoyle (as someone I know calls her) has demonstrated more than once that she has no desire to follow the Constitution, and has shown poor judgment more than once. She also doesn’t keep her word. She is still on the court and hasn’t left the country.

The we have the Judge who halted the travel ban from seven countries that are known for creating terrorists. The Judge it seems, either lied, or was ignorant of facts, and history too, one might add. Robart said there had been no terrorist attacks, there have been 78.

And as Rush Limbaugh points out, despite what people think about Robart,

And remember Judge Robart is not a Republican. He’s a Republican-appointed judge, but he is a left-wing judicial activist actually chosen by Patty Murray, the senator.

Yes, sad to say, the safety of innocent people rests on decisions made by such as these. Todd Starnes makes the point Judges need extreme vetting.

They seem to think that anyone not on the left is a threat. And I’m sure their judicial opinions would be based on this false logic. For instance, could you imagine being a conservative, or a concealed carry person coming before this “Judge”. It’s not photoshop, I promise.

Impartial Judge or lack of judgment?

Travis County (Texas) Judge Sarah Eckhardt started her session on January 24 by putting on the pink knitted “pussy” hat. Yeah, boy howdy, nothing says I’m going to be a fair impartial judge and do my job like starting out your court session by putting on a pink “pussy” power hat.

Some Judges to actually try to use some sense when they hear cases. Remember the story I brought you about Cox and Kettler involving the sound suppressors in Kansas? Well, that case has been heard.

The sentence handed down by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten still leaves intact the federal felony convictions against Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, both of Chanute, Kansas. Cox, 45, was given two years of supervised probation, and Kettler, 28, got one year of supervised probation.

Well, yeah, goodie and all that, but the law said:

The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, which passed in 2013, says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws.

Marten told the two men that while state law is not available to them as a defense, it is a factor he can take into account at their sentencing.

“I am satisfied you both had a good faith belief that you are protected by that statute,” Marten said.

So, WHY Judge, didn’t it mean what it said? That’s what Cox did. Made items for residents of Kansas.

Who is on the Supreme Court will matter for a longgggg time. Liberals will hate anyone that is not going to view the tattered Constitution as a “living breathing document” so they can kill it. There will be Second Amendment cases come before the court, there will be civil rights cases come before the court. Who would you rather see on the court, a Judge such as Neil Gorsuch or Sarah “Pussy hat” Eckhardt?

Next time Judges are up for election in your state, perhaps check with your local grassroots Second Amendment Rights group, see if they have recommendations. And seriously, who wants to show up in court with a joke like Sarah Eckhardt? If I were the defendant I’d be thinking that would be cause for a re-trial right there. But, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. They have ruled politics and ideology are more important that legal precedence and American lives.

I wonder who we could ask if they think there is a likelihood of terrorists coming in with refugees? Oh, how about Bashar Al-Assad of Syria? The whole column is here.

If you are familiar with Mark Levin he’s a lawyer with a top radio show, and here’s his take on the 9th Circuits decision.

 

In two minutes, A Time Lapse of Terror from the 1980s to November 2015. Good job 9th Circuit, I’m sure our odds are fine, no worries, nothing to see here, move along.

Please G-d, raise up for us wise Judges!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Using the Myth of the Constitution, Part 4: What to do to make the Myth REAL

by Historian

In Part One of this series, I have discussed in broad terms the flaws of the present Constitution, link HERE.

Part Two discussed the specific shortcomings of the US Constitution, and there were a number of thoughtful comments that added significant value. Link HERE.

Part Three covered suggested steps to be taken and touched on the importance of ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Link HERE.

This installment is about making the myth of the Constitution real, about how we can go about actually enforcing the Constitution.

The idea of Constitutional enforcement has been an undercurrent in American politics for a long time, almost as long as the Constitution has been in force. Lysander Spooner in his essays entitled “No Treason” was not the first person to point out this issue, nor was he the last. Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.

Moreover, very few people are discussing what I consider to be the single most egregious flaw in the Constitution. Neither Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention nor Mark Levin in his book “The Liberty Amendments” promote Constitutional ENFORCEMENT, preferring rather to propose adding still more unenforceable amendments to an unenforced, and unenforceable Document. The only person I know that pushes the idea of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the highest law of the land is Neil Smith. Despite endless lip service about Constitutional Government, few people out of government, and nobody at ALL in government seems to actually want to enforce The Document. Why is that? Cui Bono?

Well, not having an enforcement clause sure makes looting the taxpayer a lot easier, and it also makes it a lot easier to “enact a multitude of laws and eat out our substance.” A country like ours, where over half of the people working actually work for one governmental agency or another, either directly or indirectly, does provide considerable incentive for those folks to vote in favor of keeping their jobs funded. Enacting an enforcement clause is going to be damned difficult to do; enforcement of the Constitution will break lots of rice bowls. Both the Demopublicans and Republocrats see significant benefit in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy provided by the present myth.

Oddly enough, however, given the things the ruling oligarchy in this country have recently done, like having our military parade in red high heels and importing large numbers of 7th century barbarians in the hope that Western civilization will benefit therefrom, I’m hopeful that the right combination of stimuli can make the average American politician vote for damned near anything, as long as the carrot of re-election is dangled temptingly enough in front of them. But in any case, before we get hung up on the “how,” let’s think first about what an enforcement clause ought to look like. So what should an Enforcement Clause do? I have been thinking about this over the last two years, and here are my thoughts:

One of the problems we have with the current legal system is that it is a form of guild socialism. That is, if you do not belong to the appropriate guild, and pay the guild tax, you do not get to work in that profession. Guild socialism was common in medieval times, and was an early version of merchantilism, acting to restrain market entry and limit competition. American exceptionalism was due in part to getting away from those medieval ideas, and allowing anyone who wanted to enter the market to do so. Unfortunately, the lawyers managed to maintain their guild after the Revolution, and it still rides us today. As an aside, the last time I checked, I believe that there are only a few states that still allow people to read the law and take the Bar exam without having graduated from an accredited law school, one of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. (see links here and here.)

With regard to the broader issue of Constitutional enforcement, the problem is that it is totally impractical, (in reality not possible,) for a non-attorney at present to act to strike down an unConstitutional law, and the only way to gain ‘standing’ is to break the law and place yourself at risk of conviction. Given that the overall conviction rate for Federal indictments runs in the high 90% range, why would any sane person do such a thing when the deck is so obviously stacked against the common citizen? The 1934 GCA which led to the case of US v. Miller, where the Federal Government won on appeal because the plaintiff failed to show up at the Supreme Court, is just one example of such issues; there are probably tens of thousands. If we are to have true enforcement of the Constitution, we have to be sure that access to whatever mechanism is developed is not restricted to the privileged class of lawyers, and that people who perceive an infringement on the Constitutional limits on Federal authority do not have to place themselves at jeopardy to seek correction. Any American must have the right to challenge the acts of every level of government which purports to have jurisdiction over them.

The second issue I see is that Constitutional issues get bumped up the ladder, taking years of time and gobs of money before the Supreme Court rules on the matter at hand……or doesn’t, in which case confusion reigns for another stretch of time, and the poor suffering taxpayer who got screwed by the government in the first place gets ignored. There needs to be a process that provides PROMPT relief. “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” right? If the determination is made at the local level that there has been Constitutional infringment, or if there is any significant delay, there needs to be immediate action to provide relief from the unConstitutional law or regulation, which according to precedent is now void, but which in practise never goes away. That stay or injunction ought to restrict the government, at whatever level the action is brought, from acting until the issue is finally resolved at whatever level it ends up being resolved. Moreover, if the case is appealed, and the higher court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the stay should be required to be extended to the entire jurisdiction of the court holding in favor of the plaintiff. This puts some teeth into enforcement, and ought to help correct the present tendency of Federal attorneys to do the legal equivalent of the “Rope-a-dope” and to draw out the proceedings and attempt to bankrupt the plaintiff by appealing any time they get an adverse ruling.

The third issue is that nobody is held responsible. There is no personal accountability on the part of any of the myriads of Federal, State, or local governmental elected or appointed officials, agents, or employees for their misfeasance or malfeasance. Those who violate the Constitution do so with impunity. That DEFINITELY needs to change, and those convicted of unConstitutional activity under color of law should suffer for it, both civilly and criminally. On the civil side, the costs of the legal action should be assessed against the person or persons involved in the infringement, personally, and they ought to be discharged from their position and stripped of their wealth, as well as salary, benefits and pension, and any other assets they possess.

On the criminal side, deliberate infringement of the Constitution ought to be a felony, and any such infringement resulting in loss of life, directly or indirectly, ought to be punished severely. One could argue that such subversion of the Constitution and violation of rights under color of Law ought to be treated as treason, with the death penalty available, but in any case, any governmental employee, representative, or agent should be liable for their actions.

So there is my conceptual list of what an Enforcement Clause for the Constitution ought to do. Constitutional Enforcement ought to:

  • Be available to any citizen of these united States;
  • be resolved promptly, with the presumption in case of delay in favor of the plaintiff, and with stays or injunctions against the unConstitutional law or regulation required;
  • Those who promote or enact such rules or legislation should be held accountable for the damage they cause and the costs required to address the issue.

Next time, I will discuss how this might be accomplished. In the mean time, thoughts or constructive criticism of the above are welcomed.

With Regard to all who serve the Light,

Historian


(Originally published at Views from Liberty Hollow.)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail