It Is “Just a Piece of **** Paper”

Guest Post by Eric Peters

We’re supposed to revere – and follow – the Constitution. But if they don’t, why should we?piece of paper lead

By they, I mean the people who lord it over us. Our rulers. I choose the word deliberately, in the interests of editorial accuracy. We’re certainly not ruled by the Constitution.

And neither are they.

Consider, for instance, this business of judicial review. The power claimed by the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. It is a power you will find nowhere in the Constitution itself, or even hinted at. It was simply asserted by the first chief justice, John Marshall (who was a cousin of but also – unsurprisingly – a great enemy of Thomas Jefferson’s) in a kind of lawyerly Beer Hall Putsch. The court, under Marshall, defined and decreed its own power. It has been the final arbiter of what the Constitution “really” means ever since.

Even when the court’s interpretation is obviously at odds with the plain meaning of what is actually written in the Constitution.

This is the mechanism by which we are halted and searched randomly – the very definition of unreasonable, which is the language you will find in the Constitution. But the Court has repeatedly asserted its own fluid definition, Humpty Dumpty-style, contrary to what is written and simply because it can. The Fourth (and other amendments) mean whatever the Court says they mean, which means they mean nothing at all.

Here’s another:Chimp

The Constitution defines the president as a mere administrator. It is not his job (under the Constitution) to “create jobs” or start wars yet he does both (or tries to) as a matter of routine. So routine has this become that it’s now expected – even demanded – by the electorate.

Making war – and “creating jobs” – are two of the chief themes of modern presidential debates and the basis for judging the merits (the greatness) of a given president. Yet they have no lawful power to do either thing – under the Constitution.

Presidents are great to the extent they ignore the Constitution. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR. Whether you regard the actions of these men as meritorious is beside the point. Their actions were patently not constitutional.

Since the time of Lincoln, at least, American presidents have become elected monarchs, who rule to a great extent by a decree called the executive order, which is another thing you will find nowhere in the Constitution. It is another made-up power seized by those who wield power.

Perhaps you have noticed a pattern.

This power is being used more and more promiscuously – as recently by President Obama with regard to “controlling” guns (that is, controlling people who wish to exercise their right, which is in the Constitution, to keep and bear arms). The president was not able to get what he wanted through the constitutional legislative process, so he simply issued an executive order. It is the American version of a Fuhrerbefehl. That is, an order issued from the leader.

Expect more such to be issued in the coming years.

Congress is supposed to issue the nation’s currency – not a cartel of private banks. The Constitution is pretty clear on this point, too. Yet our money is under the control of private banks styling themselves the “Federal” Reserve in a pre-Clintonian (and clearly not-constitutional) contortion of the plain meaning of words.

There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a tax on income or property – yet we are afflicted with both.

How did a man from, say, Pennsylvania acquire the power to dictate to parents in Kentucky how their children will be educated, what they will be taught? Scrutinize the yellowed document till the cows come home and you will find no such power awarded to senators or representatives under the Constitution. Yet they have this power – and many others besides.OBama chimp

Where is it written in the Constitution that anyone has a right to health care? Or the obligation – enforceable – to purchase a health insurance policy? And if the government has the power to confer a right to health care (to be provided by others) and to require that people purchase health insurance, it logically follows that the government has the power to confer a right to food and housing (also provided by others) and to require that people purchase life and home and maybe gun insurance, too. If we’re allowed to retain our guns, of course.

What would be the constitutional objection?

Instead, it would be hashed out by the Court – which might decide it is (or isn’t) “constitutional”… according to its own reasoning but never referencing the actual document.

If the Constitution were, as we’re often told, the law of the land then it would have the force of law. It doesn’t. The clear prohibitions described therein are ignored as routinely and contemptuously as the speed limit; the carefully delineated processes and protocols respected less than the virtue of a $20 Vegas streetwalker.

Which brings up an important question. If the law is not respected (much less obeyed) by those who rule us, why should it be respected or obeyed by us?

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Because if you don’t obey me, I’ll hang your punk ass right next to snowdens. And feed your carcass to pigs.

Bob
Bob

Here is an insightful quote that has made a big impression on me:

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the abuses of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

Aung San Suu Kyi

As I think back on my (too many!) experiences with truly corrupt people, I believe there is a lot of truth in this statement. The comment about those subject to power is, to me, a new and important concept to consider.

Paul
Paul

Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was the fourth. John Jay was the first Chief Justice (1789 – 1795), who reputedly resigned because he had virtually nothing to do and was bored. The second was John Rutledge (June 1795 – December 1795), who was a recess appointee and was rejected. The third was Oliver Ellsworth (1796 – 1800). I would guess that John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth are largely forgotten as Chief Justices precisely because they took the Constitution and the traditional role of justices and judges to refrain from using the courts as a political tool or platform seriously. Had Marshall been impeached and removed from office for seeking an unconstitutional power to interject the court into a purely political matter, it might have staved “judicial overreach” by several decades. However, given human nature, especially the human nature of those who seek power, inevitably there would come a Chief Justice who would have found an excuse to use the court for political purposes. This is not to say that Marshall should not be excoriated for his role. He should be. Nonetheless, if not Marshall, it would have been someone else.

phoolish
phoolish

I’m relatively sure that Marshall at least understood that when the Constitution says “people” it didn’t mean abstract legal entities, and that when the Constitution says “speech” it didn’t mean continentals.

Monger
Monger

We are living in the animal farm where some animals are more equal than others under the “rule of law”. And as such you have 2 freedoms left, do as your told, and maybe you will be left alone, or not do as told and maybe you will be taken out by the enforcers.

Hard to decide, when the “rule of law” punishes those who obey, and leaves the disobedient alone. As you may suffer either way, so I suppose its just a matter of conscience or fear as to which choice to make.

In the end It doesn’t matter “Life will go on as it has always gone on—that is, badly.”

Overthecliff
Overthecliff

That power grows from the barrel of a gun is as much a fact as the law of gravity. We may not like it but it is what it is.

Brian
Brian

Marshall was the enabler of the Federal Reserve with his McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) case.

Add the case Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869) to the previous and you have the foundation of the income tax on wages, social security, medicare, and 0bamacare.

Those 4 income taxes are rooted in these two cases and are hence “Constitutional”.

Sensetti
Sensetti

Tom said The 2nd Amendment is the the tool to stop them. We have all the legal standing We need, just not the will.

Sir, you absolutely live in the North in a democratic State. Am I wrong?

robert h siddell jr
robert h siddell jr

And this is just a piece of hot lead…

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading