Search This Blog


Thursday, September 17, 2015

Misreading the Constitution

We Americans have a tradition of long-standing, going back at least to 1803, of misreading the Constitution ... even as we pretend to revere it. The particular misreading I wish at this time to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is the stubborn and persistent misreading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: for many of our current "immigration" problems -- which is to say, the fact that we are being invaded and that our rulers are aiding and abetting this invasion -- are rooted in this misreading.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Of late, in explaining how the "anchor baby" phenomenon came about and attempting to explain to Americans that the Constitution does not require us to attribute citizenship to the offspring of foreigners just because they happen to be born on American soil, several commentators have focused on the subordinate clause of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ... all the while overlooking the verb.

I call to Gentle Reader's attention the precise wording of the first sentence as compared to the second (and subsequent, here unquoted) sentences.

The first sentence declares that a certain class of person -- previously denied to be citizens -- are citizens of the US, and of the state in which they reside. That is, the effect of this sentence was a one-time deal -- it applied only to certain persons then living, and it does not apply to anyone now living.

In contrast, the second sentence (and subsequent, unquoted sentences) is ongoing -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."

The purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendemtn was to explicitly overturn and repudiate the Dread Scott decision and to incorporate this repudiation into the Constiturion itself (*); it was not to redefine what 'citizen' means.

The first sentence does not say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first sentence is not on-going, as the second is.

(*) Congress actually has the authority to overturn most recisions of the federal courts by mere legislation -- for instance, Congress could invalidate both the Roe v Wade and the Obergefell rulings tomorrow, were the congresscritter so minded, and there is nothing the supreme Court could do except to say, "Yes, sir!"

Continue reading ...

Thursday, September 3, 2015

So that people can see them

Douglas Wilson: In Which I Paint With Some Bright Yellows --
First, whenever we get to that elusive and ever-receding “hill to die on,” we will discover, upon our arrival there, that it only looked like a hill to die on from a distance. Up close, when the possible dying is also up close, it kind of looks like every other hill. All of a sudden it looks like a hill to stay alive on, covered over with topsoil that looks suspiciously like common ground.

So it turns out that surrendering hills is not the best way to train for defending the most important ones. Retreat is habit-forming.

This brings us to my second goal this morning, which is to highlight the principle. ...

But I am not trying [to] equate anything here — I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work if he is employed by a government that tries to sin grievously through the instrumentality of a godly magistrate. This is just how I paint illustrations, with bright yellows and gaudy greens. I do that so that people can see them.
Douglas Wilson: Benedict and Beza Options
But that, though a nice statement of the problem, does not answer the problem. We need a solution to the impasse created by political polytheism, which is what under-girds our incoherent system of pluralism and diversity. Schizophrenia doesn’t work for cultures any more than it does for individuals.

So all these questions can be answered, I believe, by emphasizing something that all politically-engaged Christians should get tattooed on their frontal lobes — facing in, so that they can see it all the time.

Political process is not neutral. Administrative process is not neutral. Procedures are not neutral. Constitutional law is not neutral. Nothing is neutral. Everything we do corporately in the body politic is an expression of our foundational faith. That faith will either be the true faith — what I have been calling mere Christendom — or it will be an attempt to build a great skyscraper civilization on the foundation of our watered-down secular concrete.

The “rule of law” is not some “pure neutrality,” an ethereal gas that enables a bunch of members of different faiths and religions to bond together in the same society. The rule of law is actually a codified expression of certain aspects of our Christian inheritance. It is part of our legacy and heritage for a reason. It came from somewhere. It grew and developed in some countries and not in others for profound religious reasons. The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.
There is *always* a "god of the system", and if that god is not The Living God, then it's going to be some idol ... and there is going to be at least one demon inhabiting the idol, just waiting to feast on human souls.

Michael Egnor: Christian county clerk sent to jail for her opposition to gay marriage

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing immigration law?

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing IRS law?

Michael Egnor: Why are the President's myriad and persistent refusals to enforce law treated as discretionary, but a clerk's refusal to issue a marriage certificate deemed worthy of jail time.

Michael Egnor: What Judge David L. Bunning got wrong

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Stupid bitch doesn't (even want to) understand men

Daily Mail: UK's National sperm bank has just NINE registered donors as boss plans to challenge men to 'prove their manhood' -- She hopes to appeal to men's vanity in order to attract sperm donations

Yeah. I'd really like to "prove my manhood" by causing a child to be conceived, so it can be aborted for being the "wrong" sex, or having the "wrong" eye color, or can have its life ruined by some lesbian if she doesn't kill it before it is born.

One thing the modern awash-in-feminism woman never seems to want to learn is that women have no power to shame men unless at least one of the following is true --
1) the man personally respects the particular woman attempting to shame him;
2) the point about which she wishes to shame him is one about which another man could shame him merely by lifting an eyebrow.

And the one thing the modern awash-in-feminism woman adamantly refuses to do is to earn the respect of men.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Karen Straughan

Karen Straughan (video): Why do MRAs bring up the draft?

I've watched of few of her videos (*) recently; she's mostly sensible ... for an 'atheist' and a pro-abortionist.

(*) And I *hate* videos; for in most cases, whatever information they may present could be presented in writing with far less expenditure of my time (to say nothing of bandwidth).

Continue reading ...

Monday, August 31, 2015

'The Donald'

I wonder how many people who refer to Trump as 'the Donald' even know how that (by now, way overused) nick-name came about?

Continue reading ...

Sunday, August 30, 2015

By their own metaphor

By their own metaphor, 'atheists' are just assholes

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 28, 2015

Refanging The 10th Ammendment (updated)

K T Cat: Refanging The 10th Ammendment

Though, as Mr Cat's commenter, Tim Eisele, points out, it's not that the 10th Amendment is inadequate or ambiguously worded, it's that the bureaucrats and politicians -- anf the People -- don't want to abide by the Constitution, including the 10th.

Here is my contribution to K T Cat's thread --
I think that one of the biggest reasons, and perhaps the biggest reason, that the current (and collapsing) behemoth is an anti-liberty behomoth is that people -- even senators and supreme Court (*) justices -- simply don't understand the Constiution, and mostly never try to rectify the lack. It's sort of like the case of the Bible ... everyone has one, and no one reads it.

The nearly universal misunderstanding of the Constitution starts in civics class, wherein we are taught falsehoods about the Constitution which a simple reading of it ought to dispell.

For instance, one of the first things drummed into us in civics class is that we have a federal government of three "co-equal" branches. Now, this claim is false in two ways: it's false by the Constitution (that is, it is fase de jure), and it is false by how the federal government actually operates (that is, it is fase de facto).

De facto, our rulers are various judges within federal courts. And just below the judges are the "permanent government" within the bureaucracy, which is ostensibly answerable to the chief executive.

De jure, the Constitution established the *Congress* as the supreme branch of government.

Another civics class myth is that the Constitution establishes an "independent" judiciary (which is "co-equal" with the other branches). It does nothing of the sort: the Constitution makes the federal courts, and specifically the supreme Court, creatures of the Congress -- the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare that almost every matter of law is outside the jurisdiction of the supreme Court (and thus all federal courts): so, for instance, if Congress were so minded, it could simply enact bills overturning both Roe and Obergefell and include provisions declaring these matters to be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Another civics class myth is that the Constitution grants the power of "judicial review" to the supreme Court, and thus to the federal courts under it. The Constitution does nothing of the sort; the Court's exercise of "judicial review" is an unConstitutional usurpation going back to 1803 -- John Marshall's power grab appealed to the then-current partisan needs of both the Federalists and the Democrats, and so the politicians cooperated [with the judges] in violating the Constitution ... as they have been doing ever since.

Isn't it odd that so many of the myths we are taught in civics class have the effect of making us blind to blatant violations of the Constitution? Really, it's not all that odd -- the tone of our nationalized education was set in the Progressive Era, and the Progressives were all about a stealth overthrow of the Constitution.

(*) interesting tidbit -- the Constitution never mentions any "Supreme Court", but only a "supreme Court"

Edit 2015/09/01:
The reason the "Bill of Rights" are amendments to the Constitution, rather than written into the original document as presented to the States for Ratification, is because at the Constitutional Convention itself the argument (*) prevailed amongst the Framers that if a "Bill of Rights" were explicitly written into the Constitution then over time Americans would forget that necessarily that "Bill of Rights" could list only a very small number of their rights. In the wider American society, this argument didn't prevail; and, in fact, a number of the States made their ratification of the Constitution conditional upon a "Bill of Rights" being presented to the States as amendments for further ratification.

So, this is *why* the 10th Amendment is included in the "Bill of Rights", and why it is worded as it is worded. The Constitution as originally presented to the States for ratification gives the federal government *only* the powers and authorities explicitly enumerated in the document. That is, the original document implicitly reserves all other powers and authorities to the People or to the States. So, in keeping with the rationale for not including a "Bill of Rights" in the original document, the 10th Amendment was written to make explicit that all non-enumerated powers and authorities are reserved to the People or to the States.

(*) And, as history has shown us, Hamilton, Madison and the others were right: Consider merely the current "Gay Wedding Cake" non-debate --
Here we have "gay" little fascists using the violent power of the state to attempt to compel others to approve and celebrate their choice to live lives of deviant perversion. Now, no government anywhere on earth has the authority to so compel its subjects. Yet, how are Americans trying to protect themselves from this illegal and immoral usurpation of their own rights? Why, by meekly looking for some wording in the Constitution which can be used as a basis to claim that on this particular point their inherent rights as human beings and as citizens take precedence over the (illegal and immoral) desire of other persons to enslave them.

A people who *really* believed themselves to be the inheritors of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would say, simply: "Go the Hell! You don't have the *right* to tell me to do this."

Remember: there is no such being as "the government"; it is not "the government" that is deciding to use the threat of violence-unto-death to compel so-called citizens to participate in "gay" "weddings" whether they wish to or not. Rather, it is specific actual human beings making this decision.

So, just as the Framers feared, we Americans have degenerated to the point where we automatically behave as though those who wish to use us for their own ends have the right to do so and that *we* bear the burden of proof to justify that we have this or that right as an exception to that general rule. The whole point of the Constitution implicitly, and the 10th Amendment explicitly, is that the reverse is true -- *we* have the rights without needing to justify that we have them, and *they* bear the burden of proof to justify any and all attempts to impose upon us.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Who stands where on the victimization totem pole?

GayPatriot: "So, we had to purge all Confederate Battle Flags because Dylann Stormdoor was a southern white supremacist; can we please ban that horrible rainbow flag now? Or does gay privilege trump white privilege?"

Douglas Wilson: Pretty Sure It Is Not You

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

And a Canadian??

Trigger Warnings: An "anti-feminist"

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 14, 2015

Short answer: No

Question: Was the 'War Between the States' about slavery?

This is not *new* information that Mr Sensing presents.

Continue reading ...