Skip to comments.Supreme Law? Honestly?
Posted on 05/14/2010 6:15:27 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
Theres some silly notions that are circulating among people about governance; things like: - Words mean things - Constitutions are a form of legally binding documents - Constitutions should be changed only by the appropriate amendment process and - Constitutions actually matter to those in governance.
Lets look at this properly, shall we, if words actually meant things we might actually be forced to be culpable for anything we say; but, because words are so mutable, we have an escape hatch to use should any of our peons (commonly called constituents) try to use our own words against us.
There is nothing worse than an uppity peon forcing one to think or apply these horrible Black Arts known as Reasoning & Logic. By eliminating any solid definition or meaning from words we simply bypass this fiendish trap.
Furthermore, when these peons attempt to apply Reasoning & Logic to Our Glorious Plans - analogous to mixing magic and science (or perhaps Religion and Government) - the result almost invariably makes Us look bad. This is plainly unacceptable, because as everyone knows: Perception is Reality; to besmirch Us by making Us look foolish these peons undermine how we are Perceived and thereby threaten Our very existence!
Along a similar line of perception is that constitutions are legally binding. This is related to them believing that words mean things and is utterly preposterous. Take this portion of the United States Constitution as an example: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
We pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws all the time! Take the retroactive taxation of bonus monies of the recipients of the Bailout, it was both ex post facto & a Bill of Attainder. Take the laws we passed barring firearm ownership from felons who have served their sentences, or the upgrading of misdemeanors to felonies. The peons would never have thought such things to be either right or allowable if the Constitution actually meant what it says; and yet now we have a large segment of peons which vigorously defend these policies! This is truly progress.
This brings us to the subject of changing constitutions; the concept of amending a constitution is extraordinarily outdated. It helps that constitutions are not legally binding, as we can change the procedures or laws to anything we wish, even if it is something that is prohibited by the constitution. Take Amendment 4 of the US Constitution as an example, it reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If that actually meant anything, we couldnt send out SWAT teams to raid a house with a No Knock Warrant as this amendment says that people are supposed to be secure in their homes from unreasonable searches. The peons that argue against our methods will say that it is unreasonable to burst into someones home without announcing oneself and search and seize as we see fit. Others would point out that it perscribes that warrants must particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Another good example is the sixth amendment to the US Constitution, it reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Yet when was the last time you heard of anyone having a Jury Trial for speeding or a parking violation? The fools think that this actually entitles them to some sort of defense when its obvious that Our mere accusation is proof enough of guilt for punishments; just look at our highly-successful legal team at the IRS.
So, my Fellow Rulers, do not fear the peons that belong to this so called Tea Party. They respect the laws, which we can change at the merest whim. They are so enthralled that they would beg for Our control if they found themselves without us; it is only natural for some pets to become jealous of other pets that receive more attention than they do. Keep a firm and steady hand in the application of Discipline ant the problem will resolve itself in due course.
SCOTUS has ruled that ex post facto only applies to criminal statutes ...
>>We pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws all the time!
>SCOTUS has ruled that ex post facto only applies to criminal statutes ...
Then the retroactive fining/taxing of AIG bonuses was _civil_? & Refusing to pay those _CIVIL_ fines would not have been met with the CRIMINAL charge of tax evasion?
The amount was CERTAINLY more than $20, were they afforded a Jury Trial?
PS - The Constitution says NOTHING about that being ONLY criminal; to say that is to rely on human tradition... which tend to make the Constitution of none effect.
Bitter as gall but all too true. Strong medicine is generally required to heal a chronic condition afflicting the body politic.
Nicely done. It wil lrequire a ‘housecleaning’ of biblical proportions to restore our Republic.
You sure did!
I could just hear Screwtape lecturing his young disciples on how to take advantage of the fickleness of man and his laws.
> You sure did!
>I could just hear Screwtape lecturing his young disciples on how to take advantage of the fickleness of man and his laws.
Thank you; that’s pretty high praise.
I enjoyed this parody. It’s not so much an article, as an allegory, kinda like the Screwtape Letters, if you are familiar. It got me a little riled, to start thinking about what the state of affairs are, so I thought I’d share. Thanks.
we couldnt send out SWAT teams to raid a house with a No Knock Warrant as this amendment says that people are supposed to be secure in their homes from unreasonable searches.
Like the other day, that SWAT team shot that dog and terrorized a little boy for a small bag of pot. Nice work!!! To hear that dog cry made my heart sick and to see that little boy made me truly furious. I'm not saying the parents are not partly to blame, but, talk about over kill. And what if they go to the wrong house. Some law abiding citizen who has a right to carry or owns a gun for protection? Someone will be killed and that someone would probably be the innocent home owner.
Personally IMHO, we need someone or some people to look over all of our federal laws and if they violate the Constitution, strike them down. And one of those laws would be abortion.
i agree with post # 6
Yet when was the last time you heard of anyone having a Jury Trial for speeding or a parking violation'?
Straw man argument: both speeding and parking violations are CIVIL infractions, NOT criminal.
I do like your way of thinking. The ScrewTYpe (BG) hyperbole is quite thought provoking as well.
Have you read Screwtape?
Bookmark. Nicely done!
>Have you read Screwtape?
Yeah, I have. It’s been several years; though, I still have the copy on my bookshelf.
Good job! I think my FRiend Wagglebee will enjoy it too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.