Littlestuff Weekender-9-24-2011

We have a few items to discuss today. First the Orlando debate didn’t move the ball very much except that the media line is that Perry stumbled again. I’ve heard some media types and citizens complain that the size of the candidate panel limits the time allotted for candidate responses. The local sponsors of the debates choose the criteria for entry so I have no complaint about number of candidates who are involved. In fact, the large number merely illustrates media bias when we see how the questions are distributed, and the nature of the questions selected for each candidate. Rather than become frustrated with the process we should grasp the opportunity to use the format to gain more insight about how the system has been distorted.

Most of you know that the stock market is NOT the economy. It does represent, however a thermometer or indicator of beliefs and attitudes regarding the soundness of our economy. Certain sectors will improve during chaos or meltdown, and others will stumble during prosperous and placid times. Clearly, if you hold index funds, this may have been an Excedrin kind of week, but if your portfolio is well positioned…..maybe not so bad. The news media know as much about true market forces and interactions as they do about the Second Coming and the Constitution of the United States…..very little. The radio station where I host a part-time show is a Fox Radio affiliate, so I get to hear Shepherd Smith’s daily announcement of the market close….over-dramatic and dumb. Bottom line: carefully pick your sources for information…the mass media are not reliable.

The scandal buzzards are circling the Administration and the White House. Gun running, political grants and a number of seeming violations of law and ethics. So what? As the facts are uncovered, the next election draws closer. The media do NOT place a great emphasis on the miscreant behavior so most people are generally unaware. The Republicans have shown an eager willingness to disclose but little appetite for prosecuting the law breakers. So what?

The elites want us to believe that they possess the sum of all knowledge about what is “best” for all of us. The fact that our Federal reserve is willing to bail out Greece and the EU with the tacit approval of our federal government should indicate that their “smarts” are deficient. The global economy is a house of cards as the mature economies have adopted questionable political goals (climate change, carbon exchanges etc.) and pressured the emerging economies into politically-correct stratagems that are not particularly effective. In addition the global indebtedness is massive as they pursue their “enlightened” goals. The elites should recognize that in our small Midwestern, fly-over high schools of America, the “nerds and dweebs” are never elected class president because the other students do not trust their judgments.

Theory is often absolute: Reality always has a “Plan B.”

As the Congressional Redistricting maps are unveiled across the country, some interesting encounters are shaping up. Constitutionalist voters and activists should keep your eyes on the ball. Eliminating a noxious progressive from office is appealing, but replacing her/him with a spineless RINO is frustrating. Work the primaries with vigor and vengeance.

We now enter the final week of September. The 3^rd Quarter numbers will be available in a week or so (as always, subject to adjustment). They will be troubling, but I do not trust government reporting and government numbers. It’s undoubtedly worse that the numbers will indicate. Government is inefficient and unreliable…..and grossly self-serving.

Have a great week. Enjoy the autumn, the cider and the football.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

  

Partial Birthrights

The genesis for this column was a panel discussion held for Constitution Day at Owens Community College in Northwest Ohio. The “abortion panel” was convened on Sunday afternoon September 18^th, 2011, and consisted of Mr. Ed Sitter, Law Professor Lee Strang and me.

The following is found in The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

From Wikipedia:

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.^[1]
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection

The point of contention that appears to be most vexing for those who are
inclined to protect life but unwilling to concede that “personhood”
begins at conception is when does life, personhood or humanity begin?
The historical and theological standard of “quickening” has been

broadened by the medical term of “viability.” Recent medical literature suggests that some babies can survive outside the womb as early as 18 weeks following conception. Clearly medical technology and advancements in pediatric care have greatly enhanced the life-chances for “preemies.” It seems, therefore, that to select “birth” as the determinate indicator for defining personhood and a person’s assumption of inalienable rights is much too indistinct. Why not latch onto historical precedence, original intent and horse-trading political compromise to delineate a starting point for a person’s individual rights?

Within the many communities and colonies in North America where human slavery was practiced, for the most part the slaves were not permitted to exercise their natural rights and had highly restrictive civil rights. Nevertheless as the Constitution was being negotiated and drafted, the slave-holding states wanted each slave to be counted for population and representation purposes. This would have resulted in a huge power advantage for the South in the Congress. Yankee politicians understood the ludicrous idea of counting someone’s personhood but not allowing them the full benefit of their humanity, so they countered that slaves had no rights therefore they should not be counted for representation. Even in the beginning of our Republic a toxic compromise was devised. As you will note from the constitutional excerpt previously given, slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining congressional representation. The compromise was significant for two primary reasons: it maintained an equilibrium of power between the slave and the non-slave states; and placed into the Constitution of the United States the notion that slaves were human….that they were entitled to at least a portion of their personhood. It is possible that if the slave-holding states had been successful in their effort count each slave as a person for representation allotments, the power shift to the South may have prolonged the institution of slavery for a few more decades.

Denying personhood to someone just because of their status in the economic strata of the nation was finally forbidden by the 14^th Amendment. The Due Process Clause forbade the denial of life, liberty and property rights to anyone for arbitrary reasons. It was then generally understood that a former slave who attained freedman’s status was the same person under either condition. Why not, therefore, recognize the unborn as potential persons just as the three-fifths formula did for slaves. This may be an awkward parallel, but isn’t the humanity or personhood of an unborn child on a par with that of a slave who may ultimately be free? Should the child be deprived of its personhood simply because of its circumstances prior to attaining full humanity? Historically we are aware of slaves being summarily murdered at the whims of others. Most of us are revolted by such inhumane treatment. The unborn children whose lives are snuffed out before they are born deserve our protection for their lives and their liberty. They should not be sacrificed as victims of their circumstances just as those early slaves who preceded them were unjustly killed because of their powerless conditions.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

  

 

Counter-Nullification

Nullification is a treasured and controversial principle in United States’ constitutional law. In our present context nullification means that states can reject or nullify a law passed by Congress that they believe to be unconstitutional. The most furious activity regarding nullification efforts in this country occurred between 1820 and 1860. While many assume that nullification primarily revolved around state’s rights and slavery, there have been movements to nullify tariffs and the disposition of public lands. In fact, the most strenuous and long-lasting nullification efforts were focused on those two now-forgotten raging issues. This has been a thumbnail sketch of the history of formal nullification in the United States. There has existed, however, an informal subversive movement to nullify the Constitution. The most tragic aspect of the movement is that it has been implemented by our elected and appointed officials who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Congress has consistently passed laws that defy the Constitution yet in a 58 year period from 1937 to 1995 the Supreme Court of the United did not find any congressional action unconstitutional. Given the plethora of laws and the massive expansion of the federal government during that period, one could assume that there was a conspiracy to undermine the Constitution of the United States between all three branches of government. In essence the failure of congressional restraint, the lack of presidential vetoes and the absence of Supreme Court findings of unconstitutionality suggest an informal nullification of the Constitution by the people who controlled the reins of national power. If only one of the three branches had the wisdom, the reasoning and the courage to stand and defend the Constitution, we may have avoided so many of the troubling issues we face today. Founder and Framer John Adams said, “We have a government of laws and not of men.” That may have been true two and a quarter centuries ago, but for the past century or so men have willfully ignored, distorted or violated the law to pursue their personal whims and preferences. They have and continue to informally nullify our constitutional form of government.

Liberals, conservatives, moderates, progressives and statists have banded together through their votes or non-votes to thwart the dream of the Framers and to violate their oaths of office. Now…we have a nullification movement that is gaining momentum among the people. Using the 9^th and 10^th Amendments to the Constitution as a foundation, these patriots hope to encourage their respective state legislators to reject any and all unconstitutional actions by the federal leviathan. Analysts, constitutional scholars, historians and windbags proclaim that state-initiated nullification efforts are illegal and ill informed. The power elite and their willing sycophants who have abused the Constitution and the rights of the people warn the people that they/we cannot challenge their perfidy by rejecting their unlawful actions. Clearly two wrongs do not make things right, but if the people do not grab the levers of government through their state legislatures and the nullification process, we shall have either tyranny or despotism as our reward for our inaction.

Because our “leaders” and their bureaucratic minions have engaged in their informal “counter-nullification” activities for the past ten or so decades, it seems to me that a counter-counter-nullification effort can be similarly successful if our legislators have the courage and the will to pursue one. If a state refuses to implement a clearly unconstitutional provision handed down by our national “betters,” what are the Feds going to do about it? The rule of law has already been perverted and destroyed by them. Now comes the blowback from their cavalier treatment of the Constitution. The people through their state representatives will refuse to engage in any more unconstitutional activity. If the federal power structure and their toadies attempt to declare nullification by a state an illegal act, let them and let them try to enforce their silly self-serving declaration. In addition we can assume that a state will not stand alone. There will be others that share the desire to stop the federal encroachment on the Constitution and the people.

If the people who have solemnly taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States can willy-nilly ignore their oaths and subvert the Constitution, why can’t the people ignore or reject those lawbreakers while honoring and restoring constitutional governance and principles to our respective states? The third of Newton’s laws of motion asserts that “every action is accompanied by a reaction of equal magnitude but opposite direction.” Liberty isn’t physics, but the principle expressed in Newton’s law is appropriate. We must act now while we have the energy and the means to do so. If we linger, the massive federal government will have us surrounded and bound in such a manner that we may be unable to react. The time has come to nullify the counter-nullifiers. “We the People” must be more than mere sentiment.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

    

Courting Disaster

Put a dress on a guy, and he goes crazy. No, I’m not discussing a drag queen. My observation is about judges. Before you begin sending me emails, I also have the same view of most female jurists. My complaint is not necessarily with the roles that judges play although I believe we have become much too litigious and reliant on court-administered remedies for every real or imaginary affront. No, my problem is with the Solomon-like attitudes assumed by so many of our jurists once they ascend to the seat behind the bar. The separation of powers as designed by the Framers has become a collection of fiefdoms within all three branches of government. The Executive and Congressional branches have justifiably been excoriated for their unwillingness to comply with their constitutional obligations. The Judiciary has encountered some criticism on a case-by-case basis, but overall the system and its execution appear to be seriously flawed.

With exception of the constitutionally mandated Supreme Court of the United States, all the other courts and judgeships are created by congressional action. One would assume that Congress has the power and the right to dissolve the power islands of the federal judiciary and begin anew. That appears to be the only viable remedy because of the lifetime appointments that federal judges enjoy. Congress, on the other hand, can be purged every two years though the sheeple do not seem inclined to do so, and the President can be dismissed after serving for four years and a maximum of eight years.

As a political realist, I understand that eliminating the federal court superstructure and starting over would require a willing super majority of Congress and probably a compliant Executive. In the divisive political environment of today (producers v. looters, taxpayers vs. non-payers) the likelihood of a super-majority is slim. So if the Congress or the President lacks the will or the power to restructure the federal court system, what solution(s) is available to “We the People?”

As many of you regular readers know, I am a “Nullifier.” I believe the state legislatures have the right ….and the duty to nullify any federal law, rule, mandate or regulation that violates the Constitution. In recent years most states have failed to exercise their nullification powers because many of the federal overreaches included strings and money. Also, state politicians on the whole love bigger government. It gives them more power and more goodies to distribute. Just because nullification by the states would be the correct strategy, are we limited to official state action when state politicians refuse to act on our behalf?  No, we are not. The individual action to “nullify” is civil disobedience. On the face of it the concept seems rather repugnant because those of us with the Western Tradition respect the “Rule of Law.” When the lawmakers and enforcers violate their trust and initiate laws that are clearly unconstitutional, we must pursue every avenue available to restrict them and negate the noxious legislation or rule. In addition when the enforcers distort a law or regulation to the point that it no longer resembles its original purpose or intent, citizens are duty-bound to resist and reject the government power grab.

The United States is a collection of fallible individuals. Some of them become Governors, Mayors or Presidents while others get elected to their respective legislative bodies. The judiciary and the bureaucracy are also comprised of flawed human beings. We often find in government, particularly big government, that distortion and error become compounded as they rely on precedent and shift from one aspect of government to another…..for example, an unconstitutional law passed by Congress is broadened and made even more egregious by the regulators.

Civil disobedience can be a risky strategy. Government has the power to force either compliance or prison for those who morally choose to challenge its abuses. If the local, state and federal politicians are reluctant or opposed to protecting citizens’ rights, the individual or small-group resistance may be the sole remaining option for those who chose to remain here. To circle back to our original discussion….the courts have limited resources to enforce their usurpations of the Constitution. They must rely primarily on the other branches to force compliance. The Executive and Legislative arms do not always agree with the Courts or may choose to ignore judicial rulings (see Ohio public school funding), therefore it seems that if some liberty-minded people are squeamish and hesitant about defying oppressive government, the courts and their nonsensical, unconstitutional rulings may be the weakest link in the system.

This piece is not a “call to arms.” It is, rather, a plea for thinking and considering what to do if the political efforts are unsuccessful. Personally, I do not plan to meekly accept statism and tyranny (more than we already have) without resisting. I shall resist alone if necessary. Any prudent patriot would have a “Plan B” if the original goal were not achieved.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. and Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com