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

   

Littlestuff Weekender-8-13-2011

From the Reuters Newswire yesterday the 11^th Circuit appears to get “most” of it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.
The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.
The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.
Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The White House voiced confidence the law would be upheld. "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible just months before the November 2012 presidential election.
Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote.
SPLIT DECISION
Twenty-six states together had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement. But the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A federal judge in Florida sided with the states and struck down the entire law, leading the administration to appeal.
A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit found that it did not pass muster under that clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax.
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.
That opinion was jointly written by Judges Joel Dubina, who was appointed to the appeals court by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and by Frank Hull, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.-----end of citation-----

In other court news, the Supreme Court of Ohio slapped down Rothenberg vs. Husted wherein a challenge was filed against certain Healthcare Freedom Amendment petitions because they were :1) partially completed ;2) erroneously listed payers as employers. The Court determined that the (my paraphrase) complaint addressed minute issues that had no bearing on the validity of the signatures that were submitted. Therefore, the signatures, as validated by local boards, could be included in the total necessary for placement on the ballot. Good news for the good guys.

Congress is on recess, and the Vacationer-in-Chief is at Martha’s Vineyard, so a lot of our action this week is court-based. Here’s another one. The Libertarian Party of Ohio filed suit in Federal Court in the Southern District of Ohio, LPO vs Husted, case #2:11-722. Basically, the suit challenges certain provisions of HB 194 regarding ballot-access requirements for political parties. I urge you to go to   www.lpo.org  . The story about the suit is on the front page. HB 194 now has two challenges pending. The other is the requirement for picture I.D.

Moving from the suffocating atmosphere of the courts, we now merrily trip into the silliness of Presidential politics. Eight GOP hopefuls stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Ames, IA Thursday night and suffered through inane journalist questions, a lack of ample time to present a case and the “buzz” created by Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. No striking winners….no “shot-the-wad” losers.  On Friday I got the distinct impression that some folks fear the Ron Paul campaign may be gaining momentum. Limbaugh and Levin both tore into Congressman Paul re: his statements on Iran. I don’t listen to Hannity, but I assume as a good little lap dog, he probably followed suit.

Tuesday’s radio show will feature Michael Johnston, Vice Chair and Political Director of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, as he brings us up to speed on their lawsuit in Federal Court versus Secretary Husted and HB 194.  Tuesday, 16 August, 6:00-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD.  www.wspd.com for those who like streaming.

Enjoy the remainder of the weekend.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or        www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com