Skip to main content

This Bud's for Obama + The failure of the constitution

This is just a general rant on US politics circa 2009. Today, I read that Obama is going to sit down for "a beer" with the racist Boston police officer Crowley and his personal friend Gates. This is populism at its most stomach-churning. It's like Obama's handlers want the American public to believe he really is Kal-El, capable of flying around the country in Santa-like manner sitting down and resolving all disputes with a peace-beer.

No one stops to ask whether the police ought to be able to arrest someone for belligerency. Why is belligerency an arrestable (and chargeable) offense in the first place? Since when does someone get "the right" to not be insulted just by virtue of wearing a uniform and a tin badge? Police should not be granted the power to make lawful orders (above the power to make such orders which any citizen has) and they should not be granted exception to traffic rules. I have observed in my nearly 15 years of driving (no accidents) that police cruisers are the greatest single moving hazard on the road, whipping U-turns without warning, running stoplights, stop signs, speeding and driving carelessly and distracted at will. I'm fed up with the double standard, there's no excuse for people to behave illegally because they have a magic uniform on. The Greeks have been rioting on and off for the last two years over the police hypocrisy. The police commit a crime and no one is charged or even disciplined unless it's video taped and, even then, they don't get punished to the same extent that a non-police officer would be. It's time to end the double standard. It doesn't matter what get-up you have on, the same rules apply to you as to any other person. It's become clear that the system is protecting its own and that means that the system has become the enemy of the people.

This led me to another thought: the Constitution has failed to perform its specified function and, for this reason, it ought to be scrapped. "... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to [protecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." [Emphasis mine] The evidence for the failure of the Constitution is the de facto suspension of habeus corpus which occurred in the cases of Jose Padilla and Brandon Mayfield (these are the cases we are aware of, the nature of gagging NSLs means there could be many, many more such cases that we do not even know about). To me, this is a blatant, obvious violation of human rights on the part of the Federal government for which no excuse can be made. It is not a failure of a few bad apples within the system, it is a failure of the system itself. The system did what it was supposed to do to Padilla, Mayfield and the other innocent victims of the PATRIOT Act and MCA. That means that the system itself has become destructive to the ends which the Constitution was supposed to prevent it from destroying. And this means that it is time to scrap the Constitutional Federal government. We could easily break into 50 (or fewer) separate nations and dissolve the Federal government. This might sound crazy on the face of it, but how crazy is it that the "land of the free and home of the brave" is indefinitely detaining and possibly even torturing its own citizens without due process and even without media scrutiny through the use of NSL gag orders? The Federal government has so far over-stepped its own authority that it is no more insane to dissolve it than to tolerate its ongoing abuses.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...