MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Biden’s Newfound Love of the Constitution – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2022

Of course, at the risk of stating the obvious, it’s not just Joe Biden and his leftwing Democratic cohorts who have long favored these open and flagrant violations of the Constitution. Republican rightwing statists, including Donald Trump, have long been in the same anti-Constitution camp.

https://www.fff.org/2022/12/05/bidens-newfound-love-of-the-constitution/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

President Biden and other leftwing statists are up in arms over a comment made by former President Trump calling for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” in order to declare him the winner of the 2020 presidential election, which he claims was stolen from him. As they condemn Trump for his comment, Biden and his leftwing statist cohorts have suddenly discovered a deep and profound love and respect for the Constitution.

Responding to Trump’s statement, Biden’s White House spokesman Andrew Bates, stated:

The American Constitution is a sacrosanct document that for over 200 years has guaranteed that freedom and the rule of law prevail in our great country. The Constitution brings the American people together – regardless of party – and elected leaders swear to uphold it…. Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned.

Really?

Well, how about we review some of the positions that Biden and his leftwing Constitution-loving cohorts have long taken that contradict that lovely statement by White House spokesman Bates?

1. The declaration of war requirement. The Constitution states that the president is prohibited from waging war without a congressional declaration of war from Congress. Yet, that constitutional provision has been openly and flagrantly ignored and violated in every single foreign war since World War II, with the full support of leftwing statists.

2. Gold and silver. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to coin money. It does not give the federal government the power to print money. Moreover, the Constitution expressly states that no state shall make anything but gold and silver legal tender. Nonetheless, leftwing statists have openly and flagrantly ignored and violated these constitutional provisions since the 1930s, when leftwing Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt illegally nationalized gold and made it a felony offense to own it. 

3. Federal drug laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish people for ingesting drugs that have not been approved by federal officials. In fact, in order to punish people for ingesting alcohol, statists had to secure a constitutional amendment (which they later repealed through another constitutional amendment). Leftwing statists have never done the same with respect to federal drug laws. Instead, they continue to openly and flagrantly support the federal arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations, and fines for people who are caught ingesting unapproved substances. 

4. Welfare, including Social Security and Medicare. One searches in vain for any grant of power in the Constitution to the federal government to grant welfare to anyone, including seniors. Nonetheless, the feds openly and flagrantly continue to operate their gigantic socialist welfare-state programs, with the full support of leftwing statists. 

5. The conversion to a national-security state. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

There Is No Such Thing as Limited Government!

Posted by M. C. on September 29, 2022

By Gary D. Barnett

“The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this–that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.”

Lysander Spooner

Certain idiocy should be put to rest, if any logic or understanding of real life is ever to be present in the minds of the mass herd. Yes, immediately this seems brutal, but sometimes, stark and unambiguous reality must be forthcoming in order to bring to light truths that are indisputable. The lie that there is such a thing as ‘limited government,’ is one of these bastardizations of ‘thought,’ that qualifies as absolute nonsense.

Even in its inception, this notion was presented and seeded in the minds of what are called citizens, by the very politicians and wealthy political backers of those politicians, whose singular goal was to create an unlimited federal (national) central governing system, that required all to participate whether they agreed to or not. In fact, not one average citizen from the beginning of this country until today, has ever signed and agreed to any contract (Constitution) requiring any government to exist. To accentuate the absurdity of such a claim that this or any government is limited, the only acceptance of any agreement to create a government was by the political criminals themselves who drew up the blueprint to obtain unlimited power.

I could site a thousand situations that refute the lie that any ‘limited government’ ever has or could exist, but only one is really necessary; and that is the state’s falsely claimed power to tax. All taxation is criminal and immoral, because it is forceable theft, and taxation is based on taxing all so-called ‘private’ property, and throughout all of society. The very first power given in the first Article of the heinous Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, the ‘Powers Clauses,’ is this:

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;

This initial power stated, written, and implemented by the political class, with the ‘assumed,’ not written, consent of the governed, gives unlimited taxing power to the federal government. In and of itself, such a pronouncement of power negates freedom entirely, and is overwhelming evidence that the first order of business of the founding tyrants was the unlimited ability to steal by force the property of ‘its’ citizens. There is no limit in this language, and even if there was, it would be worthless because the government retains the power to change it at will with only a majority vote by the few legislators holding power over everyone in the country, in what was ludicrously labeled, a ‘representative republic.’ What poppycock.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Spooner: We Didn’t Consent to the Constitution

Posted by M. C. on September 10, 2022

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

https://mises.org/wire/spooner-we-didnt-consent-constitution

Lysander Spooner

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probably one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

Still further. Even those who actually voted for the adoption of the Constitution, did not pledge their faith for any specific time; since no specific time was named, in the Constitution, during which the association should continue. It was, therefore, merely an association during pleasure; even as between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been any thing more than a merely voluntary association, during pleasure, between the succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their fathers did, with so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith to support it. Such portions of them as pleased, and as the States permitted to vote, have only done enough, by voting and paying taxes, (and unlawfully and tyrannically extorting taxes from others,) to keep the government in operation for the time being. And this, in the view of the Constitution, they have done voluntarily, and because it was for their interest, or pleasure, and not because they were under any pledge or obligation to do it. Any one man, or any number of men, have had a perfect right, at any time, to refuse his or their further support; and nobody could rightfully object to his or their withdrawal.

See the rest here

Author:

Lysander Spooner

Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) is the American individualist anarchist and legal theorist known mainly for setting up a commercial post office in competition with the government and thereby being shut down. But he was also the author of some of the most radical political and economic writings of the 19th century, and continues to have a huge influence on libertarian thinkers today. He was a dedicated opponent of slavery in all its forms — even advocating guerrilla war to stop it — but also a dedicated opponent of the federal invasion of the South and its postwar reconstruction. See Let’s Abolish Government, a collection selected personally by Murray Rothbard as Spooner’s best work.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Lawless! Biden Side-steps Constitution In Promise To Write Off Student Loans” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2022

https://youtu.be/ibKJIteBlQo

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dismantling the Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor the Right to Remain Silent

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2022

by John W. Whitehead

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We are witnessing the gradual dismantling of every constitutional principle that serves as a bulwark against government tyranny, overreach and abuse.

As usual, the latest assault comes from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court took aim at the Miranda warnings, which require that police inform suspects that they have a right against self-incrimination when in police custody: namely, that they have a right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and that anything they say and do can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

By shielding police from lawsuits arising from their failure to Mirandize suspects, the Supreme Court has sent a message to police that they no longer have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

Why is this important?

In totality, the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment speak to the Founders’ determination to protect the rights of the individual against a government with a natural inclination towards corruption, tyranny and thuggery.

The Founders were especially concerned with balancing the scales of justice in such a way that the innocent and the accused were not railroaded and browbeaten by government agents into coerced confessions, false convictions, or sham trials.

Indeed, so determined were the Founders to safeguard the rights of the innocent, even if it meant allowing a guilty person to go free, that Benjamin Franklin insisted, “It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Two hundred-plus years later, the Supreme Court (aided and abetted by the police state, Congress and Corporate America) has flipped that longstanding presumption of innocence on its head.

In our present suspect society, “we the people” are all presumed guilty until proven innocent.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

They don’t dare tell you what today really means

Posted by M. C. on July 5, 2022

https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/independence?e=fa1aba8cd8

Independence Day is coming up, and I wonder how many people really get why it matters.

In school, we were told this: “No taxation without representation.”

Zzzzzzzz.

The real principles were more like the following.

(1) No legislation without representation.

The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. This is the principle of self-government.

This is why a Supreme Court ordering localities around is anti-American in the truest sense. It is the opposite principle from the one the American colonists stood for.

(2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. Today we are supposed to consider this unthinkable.

(3) The colonists’ view of the (unwritten) British constitution was that Parliament could legislate only in those areas that had traditionally been within the purview of the British government. Customary practice was the test of constitutionality.

The Parliament’s view, on the other hand, was in effect that the will and act of Parliament sufficed to make its measures constitutional. In other words: if they say it’s constitutional, that makes it constitutional, even if that means the constitution changes from one day to the next.

So the colonists insisted on strict construction, if you will, while the British held to more of a “living, breathing” view of the Constitution.

Sound familiar?

So let’s recap: Independence Day is about local self-government, secession, and strict construction. Not exactly the themes you learned in school.

And not even what you’ll learn in graduate school.

One day I decided I had to know what my fellow Columbia Ph.D. students thought Independence Day was all about.

What could these left-liberals be celebrating? They don’t favor local self-government, which is what the war was all about. They don’t favor strict construction of the Constitution, while the colonists were insisting on precisely that, in a British context. And they certainly don’t favor secession.

So what the heck did they think it was all about?

Only one person answered me: “There was a distance involved.”

So the problem was that the ruling class was too far away?

“Come on, men, we must continue making sacrifices so that we may someday have exploiters who live close by!”

Some rallying cry that would have been.

This was a student at what at that time was the #2 academic department in the country for American history.

Don’t let people with fancy credentials intimidate you. If there’s one lesson of the past two years, it’s that.

Now before you go set off explosives, it is my duty as your host to alert you that today our friends at Rocket Languages are taking 60% off just the next 88 foreign-language courses they sell.

I know one of the two co-founders, and we own and love two of their courses. Instead of being a sucker who pays full price, enjoy another benefit of knowing Woods:

http://www.tomwoods.com/rocket

Tom Woods

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

July 4 Is The Anti-Abe Lincoln Holiday, A Perfect Time For Purebloods To Stand Tall

Posted by M. C. on July 2, 2022

By Allan Stevo

If you thought the case fatality rate of 1-in-1000 from Covaids was bad, you should have seen what the case fatality rate of having Abraham Lincoln as a President was like. 

About 3% of Americans died in the 4-year period from 1861 to 1865. 

They weren’t just any Americans who died. It was often the most capable members of society — young and male. 

They died because 1.) Washington DC could not play nice, 2.) Washington DC was very arrogant, 3.) Washington DC refused to allow states to dissolve a dissolvable compact. 

Sound familiar ? 

Abraham Lincoln Was The Antithesis of July 4

Monday, July 4, some bozo will inevitably put on an Abraham Lincoln costume. 

In fact, approximately 10,000 bozos will do that across the country. 

In a bozo’s head, it is all one patriotic brou-ha-ha: Constitution, July 4, the Air Force, and hot dogs. And who can blame him because that is what the schools teach, but truthfully, Abraham Lincoln was not George Washington 2.0; he was King George 2.0. 

Lincoln was holding the central government intact, rather than letting the thing devolve into its appropriate component parts. He was a centralizer, not a decentralizer. He held people captive by force rather than letting them make choices through their state governments. He was more of the spirit of 1787, rather than the spirit of 1776 — a lot more about the controlling and centralizing spirit of the US Constitution than the freeing and decentralizing spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which is commemorated on July 4th. 

But What About Fighting Slavery — That Is Freedom

And was slavery the central issue that motivated the war? No. That might make for a pretty romantic story, though. Surely that topic played a role for some, but fifteen percent of American fighting age men did not perish in the first half of the 1860s for the purpose of squabbling over slavery. There were lots of prickly issues — taxes among them, which makes for a lot less sexy of a story. Unfair legislation was a big issue — boring. Agricultural versus mercantile interest was a repeated theme — YAWN-fest!!! 

Some even considered it to be a Second American Revolution, more local autonomy from a far-off, out-of-touch, practically foreign, and corrupt central government.

You can imagine how even the most well-intentioned school teachers, historians, authors, and film-makers, trying to convince future generations to care about the Civil War from the victorious Union perspective, might make it about slavery to simplify the issue and make it more appealing. Within twenty years, that was taking place. 

It was hard to convince someone born in 1866 why he should give two hoots about some old dead guy with a squeaky voice named Abe Lincoln, or why he should care about a war he never had a thing to do with. 

The World War Two Narrative Contains Similar Lies 

World War Two, we are told, was about saving the Jews. In reality, there might have been more decision-makers in Washington DC in the 1940s than in Berlin who were happy to see the Jews go bye-bye. 

Literally. 

Literally. 

Do you get that? 

Being Jewish was not pop culturally cool in 1940 the way it is in 2022. 

That part of the story somehow got appended way later. And truthfully, it is an easy to dramatize part of the story. The salvation of the Jewish people was not at the top of the casus belli for Americans in the 1940s. 

Two Fun Source Texts For Your Fourth of July Enjoyment 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Freedom’s Only Chance Is to Eliminate Constitution Worship From the Minds of All Thinking Individuals

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2022

By Gary D. Barnett

To put this in plain English, the masses are fully responsible for their own servitude because they voluntarily allow themselves to be lied to, cheated, taxed, manipulated, controlled, beaten, ruled, and murdered by the very people they purposely place in power over them.

“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.”

Lysander SpoonerNo Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority (1870)

Given all that has happened over the past 233 years, and especially the past three years, one might wonder why it is so vital to scrap the U.S. Constitution, (and eliminate government rule) and to cease immediately what in many cases could be considered Constitution worship. In fact, most will take considerable offense at the suggestion that the Constitution is a heinous document and a fraud, and in great part, has been the foundation of our liberty destruction. After all, many actually believe that this politician’s dream came directly from God. This could not be so if the American masses had not been duped into believing that a piece of parchment created and drafted in secret, in the dark of night, behind closed and locked doors; and by the very worst and most depraved element of society, politicians, was meant only to expand the powers of a centralized federal (national) government to levels so extreme as to defy sanity.

What level of nonsense is evident when the majority of the supposed most intelligent beings on earth believe that a political document can save them, give and protect their ‘rights’; all based on the absurd notion that all that is necessary for individual sovereignty is that an all-powerful government follow to the letter the same ‘rules’ it created for itself out of whole cloth?  Maybe this can be explained better by the master of propaganda, Edward Bernays, when he said:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

To put this in plain English, the masses are fully responsible for their own servitude because they voluntarily allow themselves to be lied to, cheated, taxed, manipulated, controlled, beaten, ruled, and murdered by the very people they purposely place in power over them.

It seems that I get correspondence daily to the effect that if only ‘our’ constitution were respected and followed, we all would be saved, lights would shine in the heavens, happiness would flourish, bells would ring, prosperity and equality would reign, and government would restrict itself and become a paternal and loving master.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: Alito’s Challenge to Libertarians

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2022

by Sheldon Richman 

Note that Alito uses the term ordered liberty. That’s a concept in the case law, apparently first enunciated in 1937, that “sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.” Why must the term liberty be so qualified? Because, he writes, “attempts to justify abortion [and other things –SR] through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

Alito hastens to add that other court-protected rights that are not deeply rooted in history — such as the rights to contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage — are not jeopardized by his opinion because abortion is unique. How confident can others be about that?

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-alitos-challenge-to-libertarians/

In his recently leaked first draft of an opinion that would reverse the abortion-rights cases Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gives Americans a choice between judges who read their personal preferences into the Constitution and judges who recognize only rights that they find “rooted in [our] history and tradition” and deem “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered Liberty.’”

Is that it? Neither choice seems an adequate safeguard for individual freedom.

Whether one likes the result or not, Alito’s draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raises important issues apart from abortion. Indeed, he unintendedly draws attention to whether the Constitution can be relied on to protect liberty. Unsurprisingly, Alito is not concerned with rights as a philosophical matter. That’s not his job. Rather, he’s concerned only with constitutional rights — liberties that satisfy criteria making them worthy of protection by the government. By that standard, an otherwise perfectly defensible right might not qualify. That would be left to the legislative process. That’s the constitutional game. The framers understood this, though some libertarians do not.

The Constitution may seem to clearly endorse a general notion of liberty in the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, but does it really? Alito, like other conservatives, thinks not:

Historical inquiries … are essential whenever we are asked to recognize a new component of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause because the term “liberty” alone provides little guidance. “Liberty” is a capacious term. As Lincoln once said: “We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing” In a well-known essay, Isaiah Berlin reported that “[h]istorians of ideas” had catalogued more than 200 different senses in which the terms had been used.

In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

So, Alito writes elsewhere in his opinion, “[G]uided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term ‘liberty’ when the issue involves putative rights not named in the Constitution” — such as a woman’s putative right terminate a pregnancy.

Note that Alito uses the term ordered liberty. That’s a concept in the case law, apparently first enunciated in 1937, that “sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.” Why must the term liberty be so qualified? Because, he writes, “attempts to justify abortion [and other things –SR] through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

If that counts as “proving too much,” libertarians would say let’s do it.

Alito hastens to add that other court-protected rights that are not deeply rooted in history — such as the rights to contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage — are not jeopardized by his opinion because abortion is unique. How confident can others be about that?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: What Really Protects Liberty?

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2022

by Sheldon Richman

The upshot is that if people’s values are not consistently pro-liberty, it won’t matter in the long run much what the Constitution “says,” and if they are pro-liberty, then it won’t matter whether there is a written constitution — or a state for that matter.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist” – Lysander Spooner

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-what-really-protects-liberty/

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, as if we needed another demonstration, that little stands between the government and our liberty. Champions of individual freedom have been properly disturbed by how much power governments at all levels have seized since the pandemic hit in 2020.

To make matters worse, officeholders and public-health officials object when the judicial branch occasionally overturns their power grabs because judges are said to be unqualified to rule on “medical” matters. So, if judges furnish constitutional and other legal grounds against power grabs, we’re supposed to ignore them because they in fact are issuing medical opinions for which they are not qualified. That’s pretty inventive reasoning, but unfortunately it is in the service of tyranny and serfdom.

Some judges have made good, that is, power-limiting, decisions during the pandemic, though they might well have gone the other way. (See John Hasnas’s “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”) It’s only a slight exaggeration to say the judicial process is a coin toss.

When judges get it right, the devout constitutionalists among us cheer: “The system works!” But what about all the times the rulings went the other way? Where does that leave the constitutionalists? They will say that the problem isn’t with the Constitution; it’s with the judges. But considering that the Constitution doesn’t interpret itself, who were they expecting to interpret it? Robots that have been correctly programmed? Who would do the programming? Even people within the competing schools of constitutional interpretation don’t agree on everything.

Since it’s people all the way down and the process is internal, not external to society, don’t the constitutionalists have a wee problem?

James Madison called the Bill of Rights, which he wrote, a “parchment barrier.” But he couldn’t have really meant that because parchment is a poor material for making the heavy-duty, barrier liberty requires due to the predatory nature of politicians. The only real barriers in this regard are the people themselves — people, that is, who refuse to give, carry out, or obey unjust orders. Paraxodically, orders require consent, and that can be withheld. (Think of the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian in which Brian tells a prison guard that he doesn’t have to follow orders and the guard replies, “I like orders.”)

Strictly speaking, constitutions and statutes cannot compel unjust conduct or compliance. They are merely words. When governors ordered “non-essential” businesses and schools to shut down and people to stay home in 2020, those politicians didn’t point guns at anyone. People obeyed, but I suspect that only a few did so lest they be punished. If someone had disobeyed, armed agents of the state might have been dispatched, but why did they obey orders? No gun was held to their heads. They might have been fired and others put in their place places, but no one would have been subjected to force.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »