Wednesday, 13 July 2016

A Short Word On The Rule Of Law

In Brown v. Board of Education back in the mid-‘50s the U.S. Supreme Court struck down segregated public education laws, as practiced mainly in the South, as residue from the days of slavery on plantations in that area of the new nation of the United States of America.  The basis for the decision was the 14th Amendment’s ‘Equal Protection’ clause; to wit: 

“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.”  That is to say, as to the latter condition: the law, in effect, must be color blind; must apply to all equally; Justice with a blindfold on.  

The ‘South’ had interpreted the law to mean ‘separate but equal’ - that those states would provide public education equally to all, in terms of funding, but in schools separated by race, specifically, the black Americans in their jurisdictions.  the (so-called) Warren Court chose to look at this issue, and decided on the side of those who argued that the spirit of the law - i.e., the 14th Amendment's 'Equal Protection' clause - was not being acknowledged by the ’separate but equal’ fiction.  

Even though the spirit of socialism was behind the argument,1 I for one think that the decision made eminent legal sense; capturing the intent of the amendment.  Passed in 1868,2 it was an attempt to restructure the nation’s laws - i.e., the rule of law - in the aftermath of the terrible Civil War.  It may well have been - well; was - disruptive of the social order of things in certain areas of the nation.  But it was true to the rule of law - the Constitution, and as (properly) amended.  Whereby much was said - and rightly - at the time of the Brown decision about the difference between de jure segregation - i.e., segregation by law - and de facto segregation - i.e., segregation simply by virtue of life situations - freely ‘contracted’ living situations.  Which area of contention - i.e., the difference between a free society and one ruled over by ‘social engineers’ - was not addressed, or controlled, by the Brown decision.   

We come now down to our day, and the federal government - specifically, the executive branch thereof - is making no sense, aka nonsense, in terms of the rule of law.  How’s that?  By - for one example (there are others) - forcing leafy peaceful suburbs - open legally to all who can afford the housing; a basically free people making choices in their personal lives - to have to have low-income housing units, or simply rent-vouchered single-family dwellings, in their midst, and the crime that has come with that experiment in social engineering.

That illegal experiment in social engineering.

Remember above the distinction, drawn - rightfully drawn - back in the Brown decision, between de jure segregation and de facto segregation???

To say, more accurately, that constitutionally illegal experiment in social engineering.  For, the federal government - in a federal form of government, as opposed to a centralized form of government - can’t simply command things into being with the carrot and/or stick of money and raw power that they couldn’t command - legally - if there were no money involved.  

What am I talking about, specifically.  I will spell it out.

The head of the Usurper’s3 Housing department (HUD; with the perhaps unfortunate, although quite relevantly telling, last name of Castro) is trying - unilaterally; off his own ‘regulatory’ stick; no Congressional law, approval or say in the matter - to tie federal monies going back to states for such as road repairs to their ‘landing’ inner-city dwellers into subsidized housing in the suburbs.4  

Let me be perfectly clear here:

You cannot force the states and their subsidiaries to do things, just because there is some taxpayers’ money involved, that you wouldn’t have had the authority - the constitutional authority - to do if there were no taxpayers’ money involved.  

‘You want some federal monies for road repair?  Okay.  All you have to do to get it is to face to the East three times daily and bow and say ’Obama Be Praised’ three times each time.  And mean it.  You will be checked on, as to your sincerity.’…

I can only imagine that the federal government - executive branch thereof - is getting away with this blatant abuse of its legitimate power because the mentality has crept into the thinking processes of those on the federal level of government, both legislative and judicial, that the federal government can do anything that it wants to - or at least, what it can get away with, via the unawake stupor of the supposed and constitutionallyl-intended self-governing public - because it is a law unto itself; has moved the country from being under the rule of law to being under the rule of men.  Which otherwise is known as arbitrary law.  Which otherwise is known as tyranny.

It fits well with the attitude of the chief judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, name of Richard Posner, who thinks it’s silly to go by the Constitution and its ‘original intent’; that all that matters is ‘precedent,’ aka ‘settled law’.  And so, if the SCOTUS has made constitutional error in some decisions, including accepting such decisions by an inferior court (say, a Circuit Court of Appeals; eh, Richard??), that that rightfully becomes the law of the land.  To which attitude I have but one word to say:


If you, Dear Citizen, are going to opt for a form of government where some person, or some body, becomes the law of the land - are going to install the reverse image of Integrity, and Honor, and Duty - then I will take over now, and put things right.  As your Elder Brother.  Feeling The Call.  To set things to rights. 

With qualities such as Truth and Justice and Freedom and Beauty and Peace, Harmony and Cooperation and Love, to the fore.  Not Corruption and Greed and Lust - esp, for Power - and Vice, and Power Over Others, to the fore.  

Specifically as to the latter quality, and mentality:

You do understand that there is no ’Other,’ don’t you?  In reality??  (Figuratively and literally.)  

That We Are All One?

All facets, fractals, aspects, points of view of the One Holy Creator Source?

The All That Is??

Finding our way back to that origin?5  Back to Unity??

From having explored - for spiritual evolution’s sake - all potential in an illusory realm of separation, and duality???

If you don’t - hold on.  For, it’s All Aboard the Starlight Express.

We’re on our way there.  

Having gone as far into the inner Darkness as we dare to go, before being captured by its pull.  

The pull of this dark-copy, reverse image of

the real thing.

So; fair warning to all termites:

You will NOT take over this nation (and turn it into a mere part of a region of your totalitarian New World Order).  Because this is MY country; championing the 'right' virtues, particularly of human freedom.

Hands - off.


1) The SCOTUS took into consideration, in their deliberations on the issue, such as the thinking of the Swedish socialist scholar Gunnar Myrdal, who said, in his main book on such subjects, “In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning.”  Socialists like a powerful government, ruling over The People, deciding for them what is best for them.  That is not the mentality behind the establishment of the United States of America, which championed in its founding documents - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - the rights of the individual, to be left alone as much basically as possible by an all-pervasive government entity.  But to continue.   

2) Although there appears to be some question about its proper ratification by the necessary number of states; and this whole discussion may, then, be moot. But to continue with the gist, and spirit, of this short word on nation hijackery.

3)  another, though related, subject

4) And not content with that degree of thuggery, they even plan to 'reprimand' those who won't move to the Burbs, with all the incentives 'they' are giving them, by reducing their benefits.  What outrageous, arrogant, people-control mentality.
   But to continue.  Lest I begin losing it...  

5) Speaking of the principle of ’original intent’…

No comments: