Finally getting around to reading an article in a recent copy of the bi-weekly National Review has made me realize that perhaps I should comment in a little more detail about my reference in my last blog to the elimination of private property in the New Dispensation; the Great Turning that we are heading towards, as we speak. Let me explain.
In reading the article - which was, in my estimation, a sort of prologue to the article that I was initially drawn to (which I have commented on before: an article on Supreme Court precedents, by Richard A. Epstein and Mario Loyola, titled 'By the Roots', and which I can also highly recommend) - a feeling of relief came over me. Titled 'The Line That Held' - by Jonathan H. Adler and Nathaniel Stewart1 - it was 'deep and brief' summary of the ramifications of the ObamaCare law and decision. That decision was a bit of a fudge; but an important constitutional principle held under considerable political pressure. Hopefully, this will prove to have been an historic high-water mark. From now on, the tide towards centralization - and in the current instance, socialism/communism - turns, and federalism wins the day. Well done, all involved in this line-holding,. You bent; but you did not break.
A pertinent section from the article, before I proceed with my essential point:
"Since a mandate to make purchases from a private company was unprecedented, the case did not require the Court to revisit its earlier Commerce Clause decisions. The challenge was a rear-guard action, not a frontal assault on existing doctrine. Nevertheless, the stakes were high. The federal government's theory of the Commerce Clause, if adopted by the Court, would have dealt a serious new blow to the principle that the federal government has limited and enumerated powers [my emphases]. In ruling that the mandates was unconstitutional, the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that the government's Commerce Clause theory would 'obliterat[e] the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers'. A majority of the Supreme Court endorsed this view. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the government's position 'would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority,' warning that it would 'fundamentally chang[e] the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government'." Indeed. But to wrap this quote up:
"The conservative dissenters agreed with the chief justice on this point, observing that the Commerce Clause justification for the mandate 'threatens [our constitutional order] because it gives such an expansive meaning to the Commerce Clause that all [authors' s emphasis] private conduct (including failure to act) becomes subject to federal control, effectively destroying the Constitution's division of governmental powers'." [my emphasis]
So, a good summary of what was at stake here, in this case: a fundamental transformation of the form of government in America. Now, I know that some Democrats have honorable reasons for wishing for such a fundamental transformation; feeling that as things stand, they're not getting a fair deal, that the only winners are the guys with big bucks, who can buy their way into even more power than they already have, in too-big-to-fail bank loans and 'middle class welfare' and such. So I do understand the thinking on the classic Left. But I also understand the thinking of others 'over there', who do not have such honorable intentions in mind.
What's really going on here? What's going on here, essentially, is the consciousness battle between mere materialism and a larger perspective on the purpose of the life experience. Consider.
Just because socialism/communism - belief in 'equality' over 'liberty'2 - contain some ''good' elements in them, like an attitude of cooperation over competition, doesn't mean that they are ideal (rather than merely idealistic). A for-instance. If I were living in a communist country, just working for the state - with no purpose to life really except survival - why should I put myself out for more than sheer survival? At some point the system will break down, with individual subjects saying, 'If you want more from me, pay me more. I would be worth more to you then; would have more value to the state.' And that person would be right; because there is no other point to the life experience in such an ideological state. Sheer Darwinism; sheer survival of the fittest. Sheer Marxism; sheer materialism. Some value in cooperative living. But mere survival nevertheless, as the point.
And there are people in the West in general, and America in particular, who want to impose such an ideology on the country. For whatever reasons. Many blacks, and other minorities, who feel that they don't get 'a fair shake' in a system honoring 'essential liberty' , where the citizens can ignore the needs of the minorities because they are free to do so; to say, the state can't force them to 'be good'. And many women, who feel that they are oppressed in a patriarchal society, and want 'the state' to force others to give them 'a fair shake'. And so forth. Including a large welfare-class population, that has largely been created by the very interference of 'the state' that they want more of,3 because they are living in a sea of relative prosperity (from just such a free society as they are complaining about) and don't have the financial wherewithal to 'keep up with the Joneses'. And so, pressure for free education ('It's a right!'), and free healthcare ('It's a right!') and so forth and so on. The 'entitlement' mentality at work - precisely because those expressing it have been seduced into doing so, and have given in to that emotional/mental pressure.
Life ain't fair. So I'll vote for somebody who will make it more fair, for me…
And just so, do we lose sight of the larger picture. The picture, that tells us that life wasn't supposed to be this way. And doesn't have to be. If we will 'lift our eyes unto the hills,' as it were. Understand, that the universe has Purpose and that purpose is Good. And come back into alignment with that energy, of Good, and Purpose.
Live, to say, a Godly life. Not a material one. And 'all else will be added unto' us, in the Abundance and Joy of life lived with Purpose. With a higher purpose than just survival.
And a major danger of overthrowing the form of government that we have in America - that is, a government that guarantees the individual essential liberty - is that it will cause us to discard the notion of the importance of the individual - as having a soul; and being personally responsible for his or her actions in life - and submerge the individual into just being a cipher in the collective, living only to serve the collective. Not his/her own soul's development.
And (and here I come to the point that I have been circling around for a bit in this article) it is only the Constitution in this country that stands between the rule of law and the rule of men - between individual rights, and unlimited governmental power. And socialists, with their beady ant eyes, glowing collectively in the dark of their twilight-time almost-takeover, can hardly wait to consolidate that total overthrow. Which would have happened by now, if the Supreme Court had not come up with the decision that it did on ObamaCare. And saved the day, from totalitarian takeover. For make no mistake. This was not essentially about healthcare. It was about power.
And not power TO The People. But power OVER The People. For the state than can give you everything, can take everything away from you.
And on that note: Also to point out that it is not that the so-called Right has been any better in this matter, of trying to overthrow the Constitution, for their purposes. A proposed New World Order from the Left under the Marxist Obama has been counterbalanced by a similarly-attempted NWO from the Right, in the hoped-for takeover under the George the Second regime of the fascists - collectivists in their own right. And 'right', only so to speak. Too many people seem to think that the 'right' in politics means the big bugger - the politician in cahoots with the corporate-world, monopolistic-minded power brokers. They are at as much of a distance from the legitimate Right in politics as the more ideological socialist-communists are from the legitimate Left.4 There is legitimate difference of opinion in the battleground of the centrist Left and Right; the classic battleground, tug-of-war between 'the little guy' - the worker - and 'the country-club pal' - the owner class. At the extremes of each political polarity are birds of a similar feather: collectivists. Totalitarian-minded ideologues.
Shoo them away. And let's get together in the middle. With the common cause, of going up, now, in consciousness, to a higher level of being. One that recognizes our essential identity, as sparks of the One Holy Being, that has allowed all of this, and this sort of thing, to happen. For a purpose.
The Purpose of our growth, and continued growth, in consciousness. Approaching, now, a state of Unity. As we leave the old battlegrounds behind (and their purposes). And unite, in service to the true One. And, because we are part of the One: in service to ourselves as well.
But in that order.
Just a closing comment on the Constitution; to give it its full due.
I will confess that I have a really hard time with the liberal mentality that a) tries to make of the Constitution a wet noodle - excuse me; a 'living document', subject to the mere 'interpretation' of the Supreme Court justices, simply from their personal political proclivities; and, in furtherance of their attempts to weaken that document, which is the law and the rule of law in the nation, b) disparages the Founding Fathers in terms of slavery and the lack of the vote for women, and so forth and so silly on. I happen to feel and think that the Founders of the American experiment in self-government did an excellent job, given their time and place. And as the collective consciousness in The People rose over the years, changes in their basic rule of law were made. As these sorts of things do unfold. So I for one do not see leftwing complaints about 'the ruling class of the time' as holding much water. If you want to change specifics in your rule of law in this nation, you can certainly do so. It is not made easy; no. For good reason. So that it is not for light and transient reasons. The American Republic intended - by its Founders - to last the tests of time. And well done to them, say I, for that intention. The intention, to keep the citizenry in this experiment of personal responsibility from falling prey to the old political vices, of government by monarchy or theocracy or oligarchy or strong-man rule, and treating The People as mere subjects of the power elite, rather than sovereigns in their own right. Responsible for themselves, as befitting souls with free will - to determine their own destiny; not have it done for them, by an all-powerful state, whatever its nature.
'We hold these truths to be self-evident…' They may have been, to them. But times change.
Don't we know.
So be careful about fooling around with the Constitution. As was done under the rule of George the Second, in giving unconstitutional powers to the Executive in terms of the detention of citizens without due process, and so forth. And as was done by the nomination for the national presidency of the man who now in his life calls himself Barack Hussein Obama; who was clearly not eligible for that august office, in not being a 'natural born' citizen, as opposed to any other kind of citizen, native or naturalized;' that is to say, was not born of two citizen parents, was subject to dual loyalties/allegiances. Precisely what the Founders did their best to avoid, in that particular office, which is also of the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the nation.
Those bewigged boys were not dummies; knew, from history, whereof they deliberated.
And if you want to change their decisions: do so.
With all due respect. To say:
By the numbers. So to speak. Which are clearly spelled out in the document in question.
The contract, in question.
And under attack.
As we speak.
And which I will defend; to the utmost.
Until we supersede it, in going up to a new level of reality, and leave 'the old' behind. The old paradigm of separation and its illusion. And realize - fully get - that We Are One.
The classroom over. To dissolve, into our memories.
Lest we forget.
1 Adler is a professor and the director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Stewart is an attorney and a co-author of the Heritage Foundation legal memo 'Why the :Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional'.
2 I had my eyes opened to what was going on in the world when I read an article about the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court, back in 1954, that led to desegregation of schools in the South - that were deliberately segregated, by the State, in what was/is called de jure style, i.e., by law, rather than de facto, i.e., by fact of living circumstances - where the parents lived, which, if not determined by the State, was simply a matter of life circumstances; was not the domain of the federal government to regulate - yet. I understand that some on the Left want people to be regulated to within an inch of their lives, and so support forced integration, i.e., de jure style. I am arguing against that fundamental change in the form of the U.S. government. But I'll continue with all that in the main body of this article.
Here I just want to comment on that eye-opening of mine, when I read that the Supreme Court of the time - the so-called Warren Court (which got the reputation for being involved with 'judicial activism', a form of oligarchical ruling over the people that has come down in controversy to this day, and is part of what I am speaking about) - had taken 'on board' in their deliberations on the issue the writings of a Swedish socialist scholar/educator by the name of Gunnar Myrdal, who had written a book on this general subject, of education. I forget the name of his book; but I remember well reading in it the following eye-opening sentence:
"In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning.'
So this is , indeed, a fundamental transformation of the U.S. form of government that is going on, in some people's minds. And no wonder, then, the high pitch of the battle: On the one hand, those who want 'essential liberty' - i.e., the default position of that type of governance, to prevail in the country; and on the other, those who want 'equality' to rule the day - literally. Meaning, as ruled on and determined by the state.
Heavy-duty stuff, this 'governing style' we are involved in.
3 'Created by' in the sense that 'the government' foolishly - or intentionally; by the extremists - in essence, paid single females to have babies; and so, of course, they did. And more. And more. And then their children started down the same road. In a case of misdirected 'heart'.
Let's be clear. No one is 'entitled' - as a matter of right - to the earnings of any other person. Some taxes are necessary, for roads and infrastructure and so forth. But not to hand out to people who are not pulling their weight. And especially not to have babies on the taxpayers' dime, many of whom can't afford to have their own babies, and are being responsible citizens in not doing so.
No wonder so many people have started figuring out how to avoid income taxes. I don't blame them. The government has gotten too cavalier with their money.
In military overspending as well. But ALL the boondoggles going on; and that go on, when the mentality of 'easy pickings' takes over. And the nation begins its descent into collapse.
Not to go into the scam of the 16th Amendment, and the creation of the so-called Federal Reserve, here. For another time.
4 I remember a conversation with a 'leftist' state senator, in California, in the Bay Area, who held a get-to-know-each-other meeting at some public venue, where I got talking to him afterwards. I forget the specifics of the conversation; but it involved this difference, between the 'soft' left and the 'hard' left. He was a very nice guy, and no fool, and agreed with me as to the difference, and even mentioned how people like him would be the first ones to be taken out 'comes the revolution', after they had served their purpose. I don't think he called himself 'a useful idiot', in the words of Lenin; but the idea was there - that they were the ones who would be looked on as paving the way for the overthrow. But he was willing lo stand in that fire, because he believed in the essence of his position; the 'legitimate' aspect that I refer to. And good for him in that; he was, after all, reflecting the sentiments of his electorate.