Democrats to Aim to Subvert Democracy

 I was just listening to a briefing by Jim Rickards, who describes this coming election, November 6, as possibly, but possibly not, giving a slim lead to the Democrats in the House.  The likelihood is that the GOP will retain the Senate, although the margins for both are small.  If the Democrats do win the House--whether or not they win the Senate--they will use their slim majority to threaten both Trump and Kavanaugh with impeachment. Never mind that Ruth Bader Ginsburg breached basic canons of judicial ethics and went around advocating for her backward political views.  The Democrats' belief in democracy is this:  Any election they win is fair; any election they lose needs to be overturned.

Without having studied the key districts that are at stake, I'm not sure that polls have much meaning following their failure in 2016.

America's Living Constitution

America has a living Constitution.  The Constitution is living because it reflects the ability of the American people to amend it.  When Americans’ values change or when scientific advance changes politics, the American people can change the Constitution in two ways. 

First, the Constitution says that two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states can vote to amend the Constitution.  Second, two-thirds of the state legislatures can call a Constitutional Convention that can amend the Constitution.  These democratic processes provide for shifts in public opinion. 

The Constitution does not delegate the authority to decide Constitutionality to the federal courts, nor does it give the Supreme Court the authority to legislate, nor does it give the Supreme Court the authority to amend the Constitution.  The Supreme Court claimed that it has the power to amend the Constitution in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which it claimed that it and only it  could identify new  penumbras of the Constitution.  This arrogation of power has given it the authority to invent law, an authority that Hitler claimed for himself through his doctrine of Fuehrerprinzip. 

In contrast, George Washington believed that the president determined Constitutionality, and Andrew Jackson felt no qualms about ignoring the Supreme Court’s claims about Constitutionality.

The Constitution does not delegate authority to amend it to the Supreme Court.  There is no provision for the Supreme Court to update, revise, or change the Constitution based on their claims of penumbras or social evolution, which Supreme Court justices, who are just legal experts, have no authority, knowledge, or competence to determine.  

The claim that the Supreme Court has such authority and that the Constitution is living in the sense that its meaning can be adjusted to reflect the caprices of the Supreme Court justices is another way to express Hitler's principle of Fuehrerprinzip—the theory that his personal whim was law. The phrase living Constitution  means the nine-fuehrer principle: Neunfuehrerprinzip.

Obamacare Unconstitutional, the United States Now a Tyranny

A reader makes the claim that Congress has the power to tax, and since the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (Obamacare) is a form of taxation, that it is constitutional. This is mistaken. Obamacare is unconstitutional, as is much of the legislation that the federal government has passed since the New Deal of the 1930s. The Supreme Court has arrogated power to the federal government since then without concern for the Constitution. The separation of powers on which the Constitution is based broke down decades ago, as the Supreme Court is little more than a publicity wing for federal tyrants. The reason is that Franklin D. Roosevelt had threatened the Court that he would increase the number of justices and plant in the Court a large number of socialists who have no regard for freedom and the American way of life unless it declared several bills, including the National Labor Relations Act, constitutional. Before the threat the Supreme Court refused to do so. After Roosevelt's threat, they changed their vote.

Preferring power over legal concerns and decency, the Supreme Court since the 1930s has been willing to justify virtually any and every expansion of federal power, even those that obviously violate the Constitution. Internment of Japanese in concentration camps? No problem. Laws that cripple the American economy? No problem. Laws that allow government to steal citizens' land and give it to private developers? No problem. There has been scarcely an ugly, murderous expansion of government that the Supreme Court has not been willing to declare "constitutional".

The Supreme Court is not really a court in most peoples' understanding of the word. Rather, it is a propaganda agency along the lines of the Soviet state newspaper Izvestia whose aim was to justify tyranny.

Analysis

It is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to levy taxes on the states. This is permitted by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Article I Section 9 clarifies the last sentence, restricting the power to tax quite specifically:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The capitation tax that Obamacare charges is not proportioned. The sixteenth amendment was passed to allow income taxation that is not proportioned. However, the Obamacare tax is not an income tax. It is an unproportioned direct tax. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

The sixteenth amendment, which eliminates the apportionment requirement with respect to income, does not apply to a health care capitation tax:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Nor can other provisions of the Constitution be used to justify Obamacare.

The necessary and proper clause states:

"The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Hamilton used the necessary and proper clause to justify the establishment of a national or central bank (the Fed). However, health reform is not relevant to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Fixing broken arms and knee surgery are not among the duties granted to Congress. Hence, the necessary and proper clause does not apply.

The Tenth Amendment is quite clear. It states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Virtually all of the legislation that the federal government has passed in its history violates the Tenth Amendment, arguably including the Fed (in other words, many, such as President Andrew Jackson, have held that Hamilton was wrong).

Orwellian Claim of Interstate Commerce Regulation

Much of the federal legislation that has been passed since the 1930s has claimed to regulate interstate commerce, which is generally untrue. In other words, the Supreme Court and Congress have simply lied in order to justify passage of legislation that they deem expedient. Which is to say that the Constitution has been a dead letter for many decades, not that it is a living organism. The purpose of the Constitution is not to pretend that we have a legitimate government, but to separate and limit the powers of government so that the energies of the people can be directed toward progress. The federal government has been a serious impediment to progress since the 19th century, and in recent decades has been increasingly so. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has been eager to extend the powers of the state in every way inconsistent with the Constitution. Hence, the United States is no longer a Republic but a violent tyranny.

Americans Are Unfit for Self-Government

President Andrew Jackson suggested that when expedience became the basis on which the Constitution was interpreted, then Americans would no longer be fit for self governance. That day passed a century ago.

I have watched the City of New York, once a great industrial, artistic, cultural, and port center deteriorate and all of its vibrancy wither. It has become a cash cow for real estate and Wall Street interests. All of its innovative callings have fled. This was done in accordance with mandates of the City's democratic vote: urban renewal, taxes, corruption, city projects, expressways, rent control, and mismanagement.

I have watched the nation raise taxes on its citizens so that Americans are no longer free, but are wage slaves to the government, paying half or more of their incomes to corrupt, morally depraved programs like Social Security and the Department of Education.

I have watched Americans accept the debasement of their currency without effort to understand the relationships among banking, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank and diminishing American expectations.

I have watched Americans allow their educational system become a plaything for extremist cranks who indoctrinate, brainwash and defraud, but do not educate.

I have watched Americans passively accept waste and failed bureaucracies: the Department of Labor; the Department of Energy; the Department of Education; the Department of Health Education and Welfare. The taxes extracted to subsidize these are paid without protest by brainwashed fools, made dull witted by the American educational system.

I have watched American culture deteriorate to the point where the flagrant stupidity that passes as entertainment and the ignorance that passes as news shocks and disorients the observer, and makes me wonder about the possibility of some widespread mental contagion.

Because Americans are unfit for self government, they have allowed a succession of special interests, Wall Street, education, employers' associations, labor unions and health care lobbies to dictate spending and taxation levels, government programs and tax systems, silently and smugly accepting the abuses of corrupt lobbies.

If future generations might look back and recall the contribution of 20th century Americans to the course of history, they will remark that this was a people that was given a great nation, and through cupidity and stupidity proved that republicanism does not work.

Supreme Court to Review Donofrio Case

Bob Robbins just forwarded this link to WorldNet Daily:

"Most Americans don't realize it yet, but this Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Barack Obama is indeed constitutionally eligible to become the next president.

The justices will hold a conference on the question and consider the case for formal review.

The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution."

"If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be..."

Read the whole thing here.

Kennedy v. Louisiana and Limiting the Supreme Court's Power

The progressive movement that began in the early twentieth century has followed a gradualist approach to the erosion of liberty. Its left wing makes extreme demands, and then its center argues for moderation, which means less erosion than the left demands. The process repeats so that the extreme demands are achieved through several small steps. As well, the progressives, starting with John Dewey, have been deceitful. They argue that they they idealize democracy and public deliberation, but then they advocate increasing centralization and bureaucratization of power, for instance the accretion of the Supreme Court's power over state law, that stifles democracy. These steps have the effect of restricting the majority of people's freedom, as in the economic realm, or of increasing the power of the progressive elite to impose the cultural values of the wealthy and Ivy League-educated onto the general public.

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court held that a Louisiana law that provided the death penalty for a child rapist is cruel and unusual punishment and so unconstitutional. The New York Sun summarizes the Court's reasoning about cruel and unusual punishment as follows:

'Cruel and unusual punishment,' which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, derives its meaning from 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' These evolved standards, according to Justice Kennedy, require a distinction, 'between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non homicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other.' Citing precedents, Justice Kennedy claims this distinction shows that the "severity and irrevocability" of child rape cannot be compared to murder 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public.'

Kennedy v. Louisiana is a chord in the progressive symphony. In the nineteenth century the Court did not have the power to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. In 1925, near the end of the Progressive era, in the case of Gitlow v. New York the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extended its power to review state law.

In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that Estelle Griswold, director of planned parenthood of Connecticut and Dr. Buxton of the Yale Medical School could not be fined for giving advice to patients encouraging them to use contraceptives even though the legislature of Connecticut had passed such a law. In the decision Justice Douglas wrote:

"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen."

Thus, the Court went from not reviewing constitutionality of state law in the nineteenth century to reviewing it in the pre-World War II period and then to creating new rules not in the Constitution ("penumbras") in the post-World War II period that the Court then dictatorially imposed on the states. Paradoxically, Herbert Croly and other progressives of the early twentieth century argued that the Court had too much power in the nineteenth century and that democracy ought to supplant Court authority. Instead, progressivism has seen a vast extension of Court power and restriction of democracy. Despite their deceptive claim to support democracy, progressives have hailed this process. Progressives' values have emphasized extension of the First Amendment to revolutionaries (the speech involved in Gitlow involved Gitlow's advocating overthrow of the government, which New York had illegalized) and birth control. Progressives have repeatedly emphasized results like these over democracy.

In Kennedy v. Louisiana the Court claims the authority to reinterpret the Constitution in light of the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Yet, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court that authority any more than the Constitution suggests that its penumbras have Constitutional force. The Supreme Court has simply re-interpreted the Constitution in a way that arrogates power to itself and that is profoundly anti-democratic. The fact that the "progressive" movement has never complained about this pattern evidences its elitism.

The Supreme Court views itself as an arbiter of decency, yet the Supreme Court has no qualification to function as such an arbiter. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court held that states could not illegalize abortion. Yet, according to ABC News, 57 percent of Americans oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy. In other words, the majority of Americans do not think that the Supreme Court's judgment is decent. Nor should the Supreme Court imagine that it somehow reflects the moral standards of the majority of Americans. Some justices, schooled in elite universities and indoctrinated in politically correct ideology, have values that deviate sharply from the majority of Americans. If so, then the Court has become an arbitrary possessor of power, a factional dictatorial force that represents the "Blue" half of the country, not an interpreter of the Constitution. Perhaps it is time to restrict this anti-democratic, factional force.

An amendment to the Constitution could limit the Court's power to apply the Constitution to the states. If progressives believe in democracy, then they should favor this proposal, because enhancement of the power of the states would significantly enhance democracy. Such an amendment might state that the Constitution, except where it states to the contrary specifically, does not apply to the states. Then, the states will be free to decide what "penumbras" they wish to adopt, and which Supreme Court penumbras they find morally reprehensible.