The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: Power To Speak An anarchist perspective on government
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting. ... peak/7876/

Some of the coments at the link are good as well.

Power To Speak
An anarchist perspective on government

By Shane Solano 05/06/2010

In aid of all the attention (I would say more like a smear campaign) being lavished by the MSM on the Tea Party (or Tea Bagger, if you’re a leftist) movement, here are a few observations on some of the issues/concerns/planks I’ve seen raised by many of its participants, and some perspective from an anarchist point of view.

Talking about states’ rights while denying the lawfulness of secession is just that … talk. Since secession was declared illegal by the federal government’s conquest of the Confederacy in 1865, talk of states’ rights is just talk. The anti-federalists were right, but the federalists won the political battle back in the late 18th century.

The constitution means … whatever those who happen currently to be in control of the federal government say it does. These folks number fewer than 300: one-half plus one Congress (a quorum for conducting legislative business is far fewer than the number of total possible representatives, so this number could be potentially less than 200), one president, and five Supreme Court justices. This essentially means the Constitution has no meaning, only subjective interpretation. Anyone else’s opinion is worth nary a zinc penny. And many think this a system of perfection?! It’s not even sane! Oligarchy, anyone?

Government is inhabited by strangers who derive their authority from having had more people put checkmarks next to their names than those of their opponents in an election. Typically, the winning number represents 10-25 percent (depending on the perceived importance of election — presidential gets more attention than local school board, for example) of the populace the winning candidate gets to rule over. Obama’s “landslide” victory (and the most favorable interpretation of a Democratic Party “mandate”) saw him garnering a whopping 22-23 percent of the votes of all Americans.

Government (all governments) resembles nothing so much as a legalized Mafia that claims a monopoly over the use of initiatory violence, usually over a specific geographic area (but sometimes outside it — see U.S. government) in order to extract protection money (i.e., taxes) to fund its operations.

It claims the power to order people around (i.e., make laws and regulations) at gunpoint. It has enforcers (police, military, investigators, tax-collectors, etc.) to make sure people obey. Federal, state and local laws — and the regulations they spawn — most likely number in the millions, now, across America. Remember: ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for violations thereof.

If one disagrees with the government’s edicts, one has the privilege of challenging them before a government-appointed and -paid judge (who was probably a prosecutor for the government at one time) who will decide how the defendant gets to defend himself. Prosecutors get ahead in the legal/political world based on how many people they convict and lock up — it could be for murder or rape or for smoking a joint or for painting one’s house a non-approved color. I’m sure they’re perfectly neutral when helping administer their employer’s edicts.

There is a very clear line between those who rule (government) and the ruled (citizens): one group issues commands backed up by the threat of violence (and sometimes violence itself), and the other obeys (or else). “We” are not the government, and the government is not “us.” This kind of unbelievable disparity in power can, eventually, only lead to one outcome: totalitarianism/slavery.

Governments and the agents who serve them are composed of individuals. So we are ruled over by other individuals, not an inanimate and mythical entity we call “government.” Sure, the individuals come and go, but the offices and titles (and most importantly, power) remain: kings, noblemen, knights, divine right to rule, hereditary ascension … presidents, congressmen, soldiers, democracy, elections.

Governments, essentially, claim ownership over human beings and the products of their labor, and can be seen as a very clever disguise for slavery by the discerning.

The idea of governance — a few ruling over many, including “democracy” (representational/republicanism) — is ancient, going back thousands of years. With all the advancements and innovations humanity has witnessed over a wide range of areas since then, you would think we might start questioning the legitimacy of a system of societal relations that has force (i.e., government) as its core unifying principle. For some reason, however, almost all cling to this ancient idea, insisting not only that it is the best system, but the only one.

What kind of people do you think will be drawn to government power? Who shall have the kind of ruthless ambition necessary, and the skills to manipulate the greatest number of people, which are required to gain high office where the real political power is? Who backs these types of individuals and to what end? What kind of “payback” do political climbers owe their benefactors? What kinds of alliances and deals are made in pursuit of the great and terrible power that governments wield? Why do so many fail to recognize politics and the political class for what it is?

A piece of paper with rules written on it (Constitution) can’t stop evil men from being evil — and they know this.

Maybe the rest of us will figure this all out some day.

Shane Solano is a resident of Ventura and an anarchist.
The unawareness of the issues that this document covers is driven by central paralysing paradoxes and contradictions.

The Union claimed moral superiority over the the Confederacy while they were simultaneously breaking Indian agreements and settling Indian land. They also held on to territories in order to capture the products of slave labour.

Quote:The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave ... ntprint=76

Times have moved on. Cultural conventions change. But here, in this history, we have the origin of the current American crisis. A central contradiction - a fight for the freeing of slaves while annihilating Indians - has survived to the present day. The use of Moral Authority while simultaneously fighting brutal wars with questionable aims. Central America. The Philippines. Grenada. Panama. Korea. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq.

This contradiction is even visible if we compare the seals of the Union and Confederacy.

[Image: 600px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png]

[Image: Seal_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.png]

The Raptor holds what appears to be a peace offering while simultaneously clutching a symbol of war. What more explicit example could there be of the central moral double bind that took root in the Civil War ?

Slavery is not a pursuit I support, and neither is war. We live in times where information, knowledge, wisdom, insight and awareness count for a thousand armies. But here in the history of the Union and the Confederacy lies the origin of our current crisis.

Some of the coments at the link are good as well.

This link was in one of those good comments.

Back on topic,


by Jim Davies

It's often said that America was once a free country, but that its freedom has been heavily damaged by a relentless growth in government. Some (like Aaron Russo in his documentary America: from Freedom to Fascism) date the decline from 1913, when the Federal Reserve was chartered and the Income Tax enacted; but I no longer think it began that late. The "Pristine State" advocates suppose that there was once in our history a kind of Eden from which we have fallen, and so that all we need now is somehow to get back there – to "constitutional rule." There wasn't, and we don't. I think our troubles began no later than 1789.

The drafting was done in 1787, and the needed nine States had ratified it by June 21st, 1788, so the Constitution became supreme law on that day. Then on March 3rd 1789 Congress opened its doors and the following month George Washington presided. It's very interesting to notice what the new Congress did, in its first session, from March through September of that year.

It committed six acts, before going home for the winter in September. See if any of them give you warm, fuzzy feelings; and in a moment I'll focus on the sixth, because of its huge importance.

First came some administration; deciding on how oaths of office were to be taken. Not too much there to bother us.

Second was the "Hamilton Tariff," under which revenue was to be raised. So the second-ever Act of the US Congress was to arrange for the confiscation of property. Sure, it was Constitutional – it was a set of tariffs, imposed on certain imports; some must have recalled that it was a tariff on tea that had sparked the Revolution in the first place, so may have wondered whether anything had changed except the geographic location of the thieves. The import duties favored Northern manufacturers by making foreign goods seem more expensive – it was protectionist – and hurt Southerners by making them pay more. From Day One, a division was being fashioned that led after seventy years to open warfare. So the first substantive thing Congress did was to start to set the scene for internal conflict.

Third came an establishment of "Foreign Affairs" – now the Department of State – by which the new government was to execute "policies" towards other nations. If the intention was to have a perfectly uniform policy towards all, that would not have been needed. By establishing one, it was clear there were to be some nations more favored, others less favored. That's what a "foreign policy" means, and it is ultimately the cause of war and, in our own era, of the unconventional war called "terrorism"; for had there been no foreign policy favoring Israel (recall Biden's call in March for "no space" between the policies of the US and Israel?) there would have been no 9/11, or if there had been one favoring Palestinians there would have been a "9/11" much sooner and much more devastating, executed by Mossad. So the third Act in the history of the new government was to set the scene for all future external conflict.

Fourth was an Act to set up a Department of War – now euphemized as "Defense" – and that was very logical. You play favorites with other nations, eventually you'll need to fight some of them. Better get ready.

Fifth came the Department of the Treasury, to take in and account for the collection and spending of the money confiscated by Act Two. It is to this Department that today's IRS belongs, so I need say no more.

So far, it's not too hard to detect the beginnings of all the most loathsome attributes of any government: tax, distortion, discord and warfare. This is to what our well-meaning "Constitutionalist" friends want to get us back.

The sixth action of that first session bore fruit on September 24th, 1789 and was the "Judiciary Act" – and it's notorious and breathtaking. Here's why.

On its face, its purpose was just to flesh out Article Three, which said there was to be a Judicial Branch in the new government. It had to do with establishing Courts – Supreme, District, Circuit – and government Attorneys, General and less general. But as well as that administrative stuff, the 1789 Judiciary Act declared that the Supreme Court had the power to hear actions for "writs of mandamus" as one of original jurisdiction, and so not to be just a court of appeal. Congress was therefore purporting to grant to its sister Branch a power which Article Three never gave it.

Oops! Right off the bat, in its very first session, Congress therefore tried to do something it was not empowered to do (if you'll allow for the moment that, contrary to Spooner, the Constitution actually empowered anyone to do anything). In so doing, Congress demonstrated its disdain for the fences placed around it by Articles Two and Five. Very clearly, government today acknowledges no limits on its power; the 1789 Judiciary Act made it plain that Congress never did acknowledge such limits, even in its very first session.

Was this arrogation of power deliberate, or inadvertent?

Either is possible if the Act is considered in isolation, but it wasn't isolated. While the Constitution was being drafted, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists had wanted to specify powers for the Judicial Branch, just as the charter did for the other two Branches, and in particular to grant it the power of "Judicial Review," i.e., to say what is, and is not, valid law. He argued that that is what high courts normally do. However in Article Three no powers were granted to it at all, so as it's fair to presume that it was not to have zero powers (otherwise, why set it up?) consequently Article Three left them wide open – for unlike the wording of Articles I and II there are no limits or prohibitions named, either. It was a blank check, whose detail could be filled in later.

If Hamilton had had his way and the Constitution as drafted had said something like "The Supreme Court shall have power to decide what is law and what is not law" the new government would have been plainly seen as a dictatorship, and in my humble opinion it would have not had a snowball's chance of getting ratified; even as it was, that process was no sure thing. So that's why they left it blank – while the Federalist majority intended all along that such a power should, indeed, be owned by the Judicial Branch so that the new government could (with a little delay, and with its cooperation) do anything it wanted to do, while operating under the pretense of being strictly limited.

So Congress' 1789 attempt to endow the Supreme Court with a new power (to hear certain cases with original jurisdiction) was not accidental, but deliberate; that particular power wasn't very important, but it was to test the waters, establish a precedent. If they could grant it one small power then, they could later grant it bigger ones, and so eventually equip it with absolute, law-determining power. Take an inch at once, so as to take a mile later on.

Success came soon: Jefferson won the 1802 election and in the changeover from Adams' administration a certain judge, William Marbury, was not given his proper paperwork to take up an appointment in D.C. So he took advantage of the Judiciary Act, and filed with the Supreme Court a suit for a "writ of mandamus" – to handle that matter at once – against the new Secretary of State, Madison.

John Marshall's Supreme Court delivered a well-reasoned opinion, which confirmed that Marbury was properly entitled to his new job, but that the Supreme Court was not legally entitled to issue the requested writ. Marshall wrote that the Congress had no power to endow the Court with the right to hear such petitions as one of original jurisdiction, for by so doing it would have amended the Constitution, contrary to Article V. He was right; the 1789 Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. So as to clarify that Congress was not the final arbiter of law he then went on to write the sentence now engraved on the wall of the Supreme Court building:


Now, here's the awesome trick that was being pulled: in the very act of declaring that Congress was not entitled to amend the Constitution, Marshall's court was itself amending the Constitution! – or purporting to do so. Why? – because in Article Three, the Judicial Branch is not empowered to declare whether or not a law that Congress wrote conforms to the Constitution. That power of final arbitration or "judicial review" is simply not there. Hamilton wanted it there, and argued that it was implicitly there, but in fact it is not. Therefore, in issuing the Marbury opinion, Marshall put it there: he did for his own Branch exactly what the decision itself said was not allowed for another Branch.

Did his court have any alternative? – I don't think so, but to judge from the enthusiasm Marshall used in the quote above, I doubt whether that worried him. The Marbury decision filled in the blank check of Article Three; that was how power was grabbed. Since 1803, what is and is not law has been determined not by "The People" or their alleged representatives in Congress, but by a cabal of government people who decide what's to be done and, if challenged, get the Judicial Branch to declare it legal. The yawning chasm between what courts now routinely enforce regarding income tax, for example, and what USC Title 26 actually says (and indeed what the Supreme Court said about unapportioned direct taxes, between 1896 and 1921) is thereby fully explained: the Judicial Department "says what the law is," really and truly and actually, and so it's been ever since 1803 thanks to the empty text of Article Three and to Marbury v Madison.

Was the Marbury decision itself Constitutional? – that's the nub of the matter. No, of course it wasn't, for the Court exercised a power it had never been given. Yet on the other hand it exercised a power it had never been denied, either, and as Hamilton persuasively argued in the The Federalist #78, Judicial Review is quite customarily a normal function of high courts and so the power was implicit in Article Three even though not explicit. We can note also that even the power to decide simple cases of lawbreaking is not explicitly described there either, along with the prerequisite power to interpret what laws mean; yet those are accepted as normal functions of any judicial branch of government. In any case, who is to decide that key question? Some kind of super-supreme court? Sorry, that's not covered in the Constitution, not even in Article Eight. We have here reached the ultimate, fatal flaw in the pleasant fiction that governments are entities capable of being limited.

Ever since 1803, America's government has pretended to operate a limited, democratic republic but has actually been an oligopoly of lawyers. And since Article Three was crafted (and left blank) with all deliberate intent, I suggest that's the way the founders always planned it. The 1789 Judiciary Act was a kind of delayed-action poison pill, a really cunning plot, planned and executed by those honored even today as the founders of a free society. And this is perfectly logical; the notion that a government (something that governs) can ever be subject to limits (things that prevent governing) is nonsense on its face, an absolute contradiction.

May 8, 2010


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/peace.gif" alt="Peace" title="peace" />
Quote:This link was in one of those good comments.

That was excellent Uni. Whistle

If a visitor from Mars were asked to identify the least effective method for securing
individuals’ persons and property, he might well respond that it would be to select
one group of people, give them guns, require all members of society to pay them
regardless of the quality of service they render, and invest them with the discretion
to employ resources and determine law enforcement priorities however they see fit
subject only to the whims of their political paymasters. If asked why he thought that,
he might simply point to the Los Angeles or the New Orleans or any other big city
police department.
hey! VC Reporter is from my home town/county! yay!
Quote:The constitution means … whatever those who happen currently to be in control of the federal government say it does.

The Myth That Justice Is Blind!

by Butler Shaffer
by Butler Shaffer
Recently by Butler Shaffer: How We Lost Our Souls

With President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, the choir has assembled to chant the mantra: "we are not supposed to know anything of her judicial predispositions." Questions designed to elicit indications of how she might rule on given cases are not to be asked. Lawyers, legal scholars, and judges – along with media lickspittles – will croon the liturgy.

I have always regarded this proposition as so absurd on its face as to be unworthy of respect from intelligent, rational men and women. It takes an Ivy League college graduate to vigorously defend the idea. Think of the implications of this doctrine were it to be applied to advice you might seek from others in your daily life. If you were suffering from appendicitis and sought the help of a medical practitioner, would it be any of your concern whether that person engaged in established medical analysis and remedies, astrology, chiropractic techniques, crystal healing, prayer, or New Age methods? Whatever you might think of any of these approaches to health, would you consider it beyond your right to inquire? If your financial advisor regularly consulted tarot cards, dream analysis, Ouija boards, or Ben Bernanke to inform his judgments, would you want to know of this fact prior to his making investment decisions on your behalf?

The general acceptance of this idea requires an underlying belief that there is something called "the law" – with the emphasis on "the" – which wise and well-educated men and women are able to discern through great effort. It is an idea that can be traced back to Plato’s notion of "philosopher kings," persons capable of discovering the objective principles and processes beneficial to a well-ordered society. The premise underlying this belief is that members of the judiciary are capable of listening to all sides in a dispute and rendering a decision consistent with these presumed objective legal standards.

Such thinking has also been influenced by scientific methods of reasoning, i.e., that one can test the validity of a given hypothesis through empirical means. One can set up experiments to determine the freezing point of water at sea level and, if the test is properly conducted, arrive at an answer upon which scientists can agree. (I will omit, for the time being, the discoveries from the study of chaos that call into question the "absolute" nature of the results achieved.) The ability of mathematicians to calculate answers to complex math problems upon which all can agree is another source of the undeserved faith in the judicial process.

But "law" – as with philosophy generally – is a normative proposition, grounded not in some imagined coherence of legal principles with the physical universe, but in subjectively-created values that differ from one person to another, one culture to another, and one time period to another. One can dispute the law of gravity and jump from the roof of a twenty-story building, but he or she cannot avoid the consequences of doing so. On the other hand, laws generated by legislative or judicial bodies can be ignored without adverse effects: have you ever seen someone driving 100 miles per hour without getting caught?

"Law," as something created and enforced by the state, is a product of nothing more than the preferences of those who control the machinery of the state. There is no more objectively-discovered validity to such a body of rules than there was in Ayn Rand’s preference for the music of Rachmaninoff over Stockhausen. What separates the pro-war from anti-war advocates are subjectively-held priorities regarding institutional interests and the value of life. None of this is to say that one person’s opinion is as good as another’s, or that a persuasive case cannot be made for a given normative standard. It is only that, no matter how strongly one holds to a given set of values – legal or otherwise – such preferences can never rise to a higher level than the thinking that produced them.

If some people are to rule others, however, the authority to do so must be seen to rest upon some higher principle than this. Every grade-schooler is aware that the bully’s power derives solely from his capacity to use violence upon others. Children are perceptive enough to understand this basic fact. Adults, on the other hand, insist upon being seduced into a state of subservience. Those who govern must be seen as deriving their powers from some higher source than the exercise of self-serving violence. Monarchs were once able to bamboozle their victims with the proposition that they ruled by "divine right." The Enlightenment – with its emphasis upon earth-centered explanations of reality, and individual liberty – forced the ruling classes to find other rationales for their arbitrary powers. This was found in the so-called "social contract" theory of social practices, with political systems presumed to have been created by an imagined collective will of all, subscribing themselves to a written constitution delineating the authority state officials were to have. That this "social contract" explanation has no more validity to it than "divine right" justifications for the existence of the state, need not concern us at this point. Other-directed men and women are capable – even desirous – of being deceived by any rationale for their subservient roles, provided it be couched in terms familiar to their conditioned mindset.

Thusly do otherwise intelligent men and women cling to the belief that written constitutions can restrain the arbitrary exercise of state power. Conservatives still speak of "returning to the Constitution." I am sorry to inform you that the American political system has never deviated from the Constitution; this document provides the state with all the authority it might ever wish to exercise. I try making the point by tweaking my conservative friends with the notion that "the Constitution is what keeps the government from doing all the terrible things it does!"

If more people bothered to actually read this document – including President Obama, who once taught constitutional law and who, in this year’s state of the union address, erroneously declared that the Constitution provided that "all men are created equal" – they would discover the unlimited powers it provided to government. Beginning with a preamble setting forth the purposes of the Constitution being "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty," the document proceeds to set forth how such purposes are to be attained.

Article I, Sec. 8 informs us that "Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. . . ." Later on, we discover that Congress also has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Standing by themselves, these words would provide the most ambitious tyrant with the only grant of authority that would ever be needed to carry out his or her desired purposes. As Lord Macaulay so well expressed it, "Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor."

One of Ms. Kagan’s college professors has stated that "she’s a woman whose . . . deepest dedication is to the constitution of the United States." There is nothing startling in all of this: one can find in this document all the power needed for putting together any political program.

Suppose that I was given the authority to "provide for the general Welfare" and "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" for exercising this power? What could I not do, constitutionally, pursuant to such a grant? Who is to decide what constitutes the "general Welfare," or what laws are "necessary and proper?" By their very nature all words are abstractions, and must be interpreted as to their application in the world. As I ask my students, if a statute regulated the sale of "glasses," would this include drinking glasses? Would it even include "eye-glasses" if such glasses were made of plastic, or if contact lenses were at issue?

For those desirous of understanding the realpolitik – instead of just the rhetoric – of how (and by whom) constitutional powers are to be interpreted, one can begin with the insights of Humpty Dumpty, who advised Alice that "’When I use a word, . . . it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’"

Who, in our political scheme of things, is to be "master" of defining words, when one "can make words mean so many different things?" This is a power usurped, on behalf of the Supreme Court, by Justice Marshall in his opinion in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison. His convoluted reasoning came down to his finding, in Article III, a power of judicial review of the actions of other branches of the government, even though such authority is nowhere spelled out, or even hinted at, in the Constitution. When the Framers of the Constitution went to such great lengths to define – albeit in very abstract terms – the powers of the other branches, why would such a fundamental authority be omitted from the section on judicial powers?

The answer, of course, is to be found in the inherently arbitrary power associated with government in all its forms: those who are to rule must have a realm of final authority that is not subject to preemption by anyone else. The American political establishment was concerned – and with some justification, given the Reign of Terror that had occurred in France – that such a popular uprising might occur in America, and that the legislative and administrative powers of the state might be employed in ways that were inconsistent with institutional interests. Part of our make-believe democracy consists of the true owners of the state creating restraints on the efforts of the ruled to direct it to their purposes. Through the use of a power of "judicial review" that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, Justice Marshall made the Supreme Court the "master" of the meaning of words found therein.

In this manner, the Supreme Court became, for all practical purposes, the sovereign political authority. Its pronouncements – not those of the electorate, or of their elected representatives – became the final interpretation of the meaning of words subject, of course, to a later court providing a different interpretation. The Supreme Court – whose members are not subject to being voted in or out of office by the general citizenry – became the seat of arbitrary power that defines every government as an agency enjoying a monopoly on the use of violence within a given territory. Members of the Supreme Court will vote their respective subjective preferences – or, more accurately, the preferences of the political establishment that elevated them to their status – for the ever-changing rules that will govern the rest of us in society.

This is why it is considered so impolitic to inquire of a judicial nominee his or her thinking on specific issues over which they are to promulgate binding definitions and rules of law. We may ask such questions of legislative or presidential/gubernatorial candidates – although experience shows we are unlikely to get either clear responses or promises that will be lived up to – but are not supposed to inquire into the thinking of those who will enjoy the arbitrary powers that define sovereignty. It is the nature of a sovereign not to be bound down, for such a limitation implies that his or her ultimate decision-making authority is subject to the approval or review of other forces who would, by definition, become sovereign.

What about the legality of federal bailouts of major corporations; or of congressional powers to audit the Fed; or of presidential powers to undertake wars without Congress’ declaration; or the constitutionality of torture; or the future of Roe v. Wade? These and other court-prescribed rules or constitutional interpretations are none of your business to ask of your sovereign rulers in advance of their assuming power. When it comes time for them to tell you of the rules to which you will be bound, rest assured that they will do so!

May 12, 2010

Quote:I.M. Huami wrote:
The constitution means … whatever those who happen currently to be in control of the federal government say it does.

Indeed, I want to strangle the idiot that first said it is a living breathing document.

Fuck you You retarded POS. It means what it says in the context of what the founders believed at that time.

Quote:Every grade-schooler is aware that the bully’s power derives solely from his capacity to use violence upon others. Children are perceptive enough to understand this basic fact. Adults, on the other hand, insist upon being seduced into a state of subservience. Those who govern must be seen as deriving their powers from some higher source than the exercise of self-serving violence.

I suppose that voting is now the higher source, like the divine right of kings the author refers to.
Why don't you look more closely at history for the answers that you seek ? I find it interesting that my post above has been ignored - I do not know if it was understood, misunderstood, or simply passed over. I see the same clichés mentioned over and over; constitution, federal and state and Government. But little of progressive arguments outside of righteous anger.
[Image: wochenschaucov_big.jpg]