Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

Government-Managed Media Nothing New

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

What bothers me is not that “clean-room” procedures will actually be followed, since they are claimed. What bothers me is the justification for “early access” to begin with:

“For years, journalists participating in the lockups have shown up at DOL at the appointed time, then entered a limited-access area to receive the new data and prepare news stories for release as soon as official embargoes end.

The system insures that major news organizations get the data as soon as possible and allows journalists covering the release get a jump on providing analyses and opinion about the data.”

—Washington Examiner, 13 April 2012

Why do they need “a jump” on anything? This is as hostile to the general public as the infamous Japanese Press Club. Let them find … Continue reading →

Checks and Balances

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

[pullquote]the three branches are still one government[/pullquote]We are familiar with our tripartite form of government, wherein each of three branches acts to check the impulses and balance the actions of the other two.  There is another level at work here, and I find it clarifying to recall that the three branches are all still subdivisions of one entity, the government.  The other trinity here is a set of relationships between God, Man, and government, and this is made explicit in the Declaration of Independence.

As a rule of thumb, I find that where Constitutionality comes into play, I prefer whichever course brings the status of things in closer accord with the Declaration.  This sort of action is typically undertaken by the Supreme Court, but is not limited to … Continue reading →

Supreme Court On Trial

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

This pivotal case before the Supreme Court is a bridgehead for a conservative restoration of government.  Our government is required by law to be run according to the Constitution, not according to the counter-Constitutional wishes and dreams of progressive Supreme Court Justices.  The question is, upon which shore will this bridgehead be located?

  • If ObamaCare is upheld, then the Supreme Court demonstrates itself sufficiently unmoored by generations of complicated precedent from the plain meaning of the Constitution that it no longer has the moral authority to interpret the document.
  • If ObamaCare is struck (stricken?) down by the Court, then the full function and trend of the government stands accused of the same problem, but by the Supreme Court rather than just by the supposed “rabble” of the … Continue reading →

Legal Question

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

[pullquote]Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) called the CLASS Act “a Ponzi scheme of the first order” — WaPo 2009[/pullquote]If a law is made under fraudulent circumstances, is it a law?  I realize that this is ridiculously vague, and I just happen to have an example in mind — ObamaCare.  It is my understanding that (let me be brief) the Slaughter rule was not invoked because budget-neutral reconciliation offered a way to pass the bill piecemeal, but only with the addition of the CLASS Act.  Well, the CLASS Act fell away long ago, and nobody was suroprised–it was always doomed to fail, an accounting trick designed to make the bill eligible for reconciliation rather than committee work on new bills.  Or something.

I realize that the … Continue reading →

Draft: Against All Enemies: Domestic Enemy

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

If you, like I, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, now is a very good time to decide what that means for you. I have decided what it means for me.
A man who lays claim to bravery in risking his life for his country, but who will not risk his career for the same, is a coward and a liar. Continue reading →

The Point

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

The Constitution is the instrument by which we arrange for our own government to act in accordance with the noble principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  Therefore, it is sometimes the Court, sometimes the States, sometimes the populace, and so forth which I support in a given struggle, so long as that actor forwards a position more in keeping with the purposes in the Declaration.

I do not find it difficult at all to “reconcile” Constitutional conservatism with advances in society which are beneficial.  The three branches of the federal government act to check and balance one another, just as the states, the feds, and the numerous individuals act to check and balance one another.

It is entirely conservative to support change if that change brings a … Continue reading →

Of, By, and For: Lincoln vs Obama

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

Abraham Lincoln was guided by an over-arching belief in the rightness of our nation’s founding concepts:

…we here highly resolve … that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Barack Obama also believes in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people–he just thinks that those are different groups of people. That is exactly the difference between conservatives and progressives.

Progressives believe that the most intelligent and most moral of society must be in charge, and they believe that systems of credentials established within progressive enclaves can reliably indicate those qualities. They believe that this ruling class must have the power to compel the human development of those more backward or more simple than … Continue reading →

Draft: Of, By, and For: Lincoln vs Obama

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

Doing research for my “Three Speeches” paper (which has been expressed  so far in my Marxism of Barack Obama posts), I noticed a defining difference between progressives and conservatives.  The jumping-off point is actually a line from the Gettysburg Address, which at any rate is worth reproducing in whole as often as possible:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of … Continue reading →

Electoral Treason

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

As I discuss in my post on Ethical Resistance, the ends are not so much what determines who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution.  Face, it, many people would like to change the Constitution, and that desire is not unconstitutional.  No matter what changes are made, if they are made through valid, Constitutional method, the change is “in bounds”.  If each change withstands scrutiny, and the constitution itself is changed to allow new or different methods, and then those methods are used to effect further change, this is all constitutional.  This is why a defense of the Constitution as it currently stands is critical.  Right now the biggest threat I see to the future of the Republic is the collaborative … Continue reading →