On The Rule Of Law

People, people…

A mailing from an outfit called National Committee to Defend America.  Cliff Kincaid, President.  His letter contains quotes from four members of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS for short).  Two of them are ‘liberals;’ two are ‘conservatives’.  You could better categorize them as anti-constitutionalists and constitutionalists.  

The anti-constitutionalists on record herein are Ruth Bader Ginsburg (get the spelling of her surname right, Cliff; it isn’t becoming of a conservative to be sloppy as regards such things) and Sonia Sotomayor; the constitutionalists: Chief Justice John Roberts and new Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch.  The issue: Consideration of foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quoted as having said: “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law…your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world.”

What arrant…but I will continue, to Justice Sotomayor’s comment regarding this issue (quoting from Cliff’s letter):

“And Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a book supporting Foreign Laws that she wants to ‘learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution.’”

As Cliff said succinctly in reply to that comment:

“Excuse Me???”        

Precisely.

Now, I will acknowledge that I have, in my research as to how this nation has gone off the rails, in a number of ways, come across the ‘debate’ regarding ‘originalism’ vs. ‘a living document;’ and so understand that the ‘debate’ has been given the veneer of some degree of respectability.  But that is, in my humble opinion:

Bollocks.

‘Originalism’ vs. anything - as if there is any other legitimate way to look at the law of the land - the Constitution…

I understand that the ‘debate’ usually ends up between the position of ‘strict construction’ vs. ‘loose/broad construction’.  But I say that that is also a whopper.  

Their job, as judges, is to interpret the Constitution in relation to its intent - its meaning.  NOT in terms of one’s personal socio-econo-political proclivities (‘activist judges,’ it is called).  

What school or schools of law did these ladies go to??  

I don’t give a, er, fig newton how prestigious it or they may be.  It needs, or they need, to be CLOSED DOWN, for misleading the law students so.  And the same goes for any other such schools of law, where the students get their misleading education from, in this regard.  

‘We can learn from others.’

Bullshit.  We’re talking about the rule of law.  Not tiddlywinks.

Dig it:

The Constitution is a contract, between the several States and the federal government.  It needs to be treated as such.  Or get the HELL out of your positions of power in this country.

And this goes for a lot of the other aspects of life.  We seem to have terribly had our eye taken off the ball, over the centuries.  And I place the blame right where it needs to be put:

At the feet of the scurrilous concept, and practice, of interest-bearing money.*

People, people:

The point of life is not to make money.  

It is to create community.

Where God can meet God.  At work and play.

And that makes all the difference.

Put another way, more in the form of it as a learning exercise:

The point of ’life’ - i.e., individual incarnations - has to be to get beyond it.  Like a particular grade in school.  And move on.   Grade - level - vibration - after grade, level, vibration.  Until we get back to Unity.  The stronger, wiser, for the experience.

The trick is to find the key to unlock the door to the fuller future.  

It would appear that that key is Love, in all of its nuances.  And the ultimate:

Unconditional Love.

Darn.

Not there yet.

Especially because of these slowpokes, who think so sloppily about things like

The Law.

Come ON, people.  Give me a break.

Let me go Home, again.

I know, I know.  It is really up to me.

But give me some indication that you are heading in the right direction regarding this subject.  Meet me half way, as it were.  And it will benefit you, too.

I promise.

Because that sort of thing - that sort of movement -  is part of

The Law.

—

* The practice of usury a) is simply all in our minds (We are already as wealthy as we will ever be); and b) gives some power over others.  Puts people in debt to others.  Is Money as Debt.  Is a scam.  No: worse.  In keeping us materially-minded and -focused, it causes us to take our eye off the ball.  

   ‘The ball’ of what it is all about, really.   

   Yes, it creates Drama.  And Drama provides lesson-learning.

   But the time - and of awareness - comes when Drama is superfluous, to

   the real thing.

    It’s time to stop being caught in the trap.

   The trap of the Illusion.

   Where we are food for Dark forces.  And the more for the further that we have been led astray, think that this vale of tears is all there is, put all our eggs of recognition in this basket. 

   But to continue.