Tuesday, 8 August 2017

On Living By The Rule of Law. Or Not.

I have just come across a discussion on the Tenth Amendment Center email site which brings up a longstanding ‘issue’ for me.  That being the notion, which has developed over the years, that (somehow) the 14th Amendment turned the Constitution on its head, including its Amendments - better known as the Bill of Rights1 - and that from that time on, the 14th reads and means, in effect: ’All the powers formerly reserved to the States or to the people’ [see the Tenth Amendment, which spells that little constitutional matter out explicitly] ‘shall now reside in the federal government’.  And that therefore, the federal judiciary has the power to adjudicate on all such matters formerly reserved to “the States, or to the people”.


It is called ‘the Incorporation Doctrine’: the notion that the 14th Amendment, in saying that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meant to invert the Constitution - its whole thrust of being, in a federal constitutional republic!

Nonsense.  It only refers to the likes of making sure that the states - and in particular with reference to the Southern States, and their treatment of their former slaves - could no longer treat with their American citizenry arbitrarily; had to deal with them through the color of the law, meaning, of its due process.  And with the ”equal” portion of the amendment obviously meaning that the law had to apply to all citizens equally; that everyone is equal before the law; that there could not be one set of laws for whites and one set for blacks, for especial example; that the law needs to be color blind, in effect and intention.  No more second-class citizens (i.e., no more master class and subordinate class(es).2  

All of this other stuff that has developed therefrom, like a coach and horses being run through a breach in a wall, is simply a gross canard, perpetrated on the American public by shyster lawyer types - legalistic boffins who were and have been attempting to turn this country’s form of government into a centralized one, rather than a federal one; the easier to take it over by, my dears.  

Would I overturn all these years of ‘precedent’?

Of course.


Because it is a work of fiction.3

Because it has all been based on a flat-out lie.

And I will NOT abide the presence of lies.

Not in my country.

And apparently the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified anyway.

So there.

So, let’s have at it, people.  And clean this place up.

Either we return to the rule of law.  Or we perish under the rule of men.  

Aka arbitrary law.  Aka tyranny.

Breathing down our necks.  

As we speak.

And then - and only then - 

can we move Up.  

A notch.  Or two.

Depending on how well we integrate

The New.

P.S. And a feature of all this; that I would say was a part of the natural process involved, along the lines of how Hegel saw things evolving, and giving the name to the process of ‘the dialectical process’ (i.e., a ‘thesis’ - a position - generating an ‘antithesis’ - a reactive response to it - which together form the ‘thesis’ of the next stage of the unfolding process; until coming to completion, in a.the final Synthesis):
     If you are going to go for one-man rule - as 'you' were heading for employing under the Usurper, Obama; but with the stage set by George W. Bush, and his surveillance-state-setting ‘War on Terror’ - then I will take over now.  And do it for the Light.
     With thanks to Donald Trump for holding the space for me; while things worked out, to their dialectal-process’s completion.  With either the Dark side or the Light side ending up ruling the world.
     Guess which side wins, in the end. (And The End.)
     And was going to win from the very beginning.  With the Light capable of standing on its own, being what the creation is made up of.  But the Dark needing the Light, for its very existence.
     But the Dark side denizens would have their way with us; have their say in things.
     And now, with the realm - this realm - of Duality/Polarity coming to its conclusion (this Time around), can come over to the Light side, and join in in the celebration, of graduation.
     If they so choose.
     Their choice.
     As always.
     In this Creator's universe.


1 being some examples of rights retained by the states and/or the people, i.e., not being vouchsafed to the power of the federal government to adjudicate over; the federal government being one only of limited and delegated powers - “few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of the man well known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison

2 State-mandated segregation - that is, by law - thereby by implication treating the former slaves as unequal. 
   The argument that the Southern states used for many years thereafter, for segregation in their schools, was that the schools were ‘equal’ in financial support; so that the ’separate but equal’ canard was employed until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision put an end to what is, or at least would appear to be, a fiction.  
   Saying thereby that I agree with that decision on the part of the SCOTUS.  But only insofar as it dealt with de jure segregation, meaning, by law.  De facto segregation was another matter entirely; was simply in the realm of the doings of people in the ordinary course of their daily lives, choosing to do such things as live where they chose to live (and thus, de facto segregation of schools being entirely legitimate, in the lives of a people living by the tenets of 'essential liberty' - not by a powerful state ruling over the lives of the people to within in inch of their lives.  As in a communist, or fascist, state).  The SCOTUS only had the power to deal with legalistic segregation matters.
   P.S. And I admit that I have not studied this particular issue, of Brown/school desegregation, in depth.  It may have been a matter of being 'right' in policy but wrong in principle.  (I.e,, an outcome-based policy.)  
   It wouldn't be the first time.  But it would be among the last.   
   And just a word at this point about the meaning of the 14th.  Its authors gave no such indication of its meaning as has been grossly extrapolated from it.  Some legal beagles talk about 'original intent...originalism' as though that were only one legitimate way to look at the constitutional contract.  If so, the contract is essentially meaningless; exists simply in the eye of the beholder.  It would appear now in our day to be well in the eye of the scheming beholder.  Leading inevitably to such classy legalistic artifices as 'the penumbras' and 'emanations' of our later years.
   A travesty. 
   Nothing to do with the rule of law.
   Everything to do with the rule of men.
   More on which, coming up.
   But just to wrap up the essential point, in this 'equality' business:
   You liberal meddlers do not have the power - to say, the legal power - to demand any sort of black-white ratio in public schools.  The Constitution - the rule of law in this country - does not either demand that or allow that.  And busing merely to achieve racial balance - transporting children because of their race - was clearly unconstitutional; and showed graphically the arrogance of power on the one hand and the need for the rule of law on the other.  
   Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in the years after the 1954 Warren Court Brown decision, was flat-out wrong in his dogged pursuit of racial balancing in public schools, that became a crusade for balancing for balancing's sake- the pursuit of a social policy for an assumed 'social good'.  In his words: "(I)n order to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society."
   Talk about good intentions...
   Sometimes, the law indeed is an ass.    

3 If an error has been incorporated into a construction, it needs to be corrected.  Especially if it has been made early on in the 'life' of the construction.  If an edifice has been constructed on an error in design, that edifice, being particularly rickety, needs to topple over, in a planned demolition, before it topples over in an unplanned 'demolition' - collapse -  and causes worse damage.
   Thus, the sooner, the better, to cause less damage - and collateral damage - in its inevitable collapse.
   The Laws - of physics, and other factors of life (like karma) - being what they are.

No comments: