The Supreme Court Rules On The Second Amendment

From the preliminary news reports, the Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment (and no, a "militia" is not a professional army, rather an occasional gathering of private citizens in order to kick some butt). I am tempted to say that the Court could hardly rule otherwise, since doing so would present us with a very strong motivation to arm ourselves posthaste.

On the other hand, I wouldn't get too excited by all this because I anticipate (upon reading the opinion) that the Court will split the baby and conclude, improperly, that both the Tumor and the States may engage in "reasonable" gun restrictions (as I have predicted here before), another dishwatery dodge that will manufacture work for attorneys for decades to come. In truth, the Tumor has no enumerated power to restrict private gun ownership, and the Second Amendment is merely an exclamation point that requires no real handwringing. The States may indeed restrict private gun ownership because -- drumroll -- nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from doing so. This clear distinction between federal and State power is unlikely to survive the modern Court's meatgrinder, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

By the way, four Justices feel that the Tumor may indeed restrict private gun ownership, a viewpoint that lays bare their total disconnect from the plain meaning and purpose behind the constitutional design.

UPDATE -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has telegraphed her intention to wriggle through the unfortunate (and thoroughly-predictable) gaps in the Supreme Court's opinion, promising that the District of Columbia will pursue "less pervasive" restrictions on handguns. Constitutional clarity earns another nail in its coffin.

UPDATE II -- Steve Kinsella over at lewrockwell.com provides a pretty good analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling. His take mostly parallels my own, especially the phrase "exclamation point" to describe the purpose of the Second Amendment as a mere reminder of enumerated federal powers. I'm not sure, however, about his assertion that the District of Columbia should be regarded as the equivalent of a State, i.e., an entity wielding presumptive legislative power to whom the Bill of Rights does not apply. After all, it is the federal Congress that is charged with the District's ultimate governance, suggesting that the doctrine of enumerated federal powers applies there as well. I'll have to follow up on that to figure out the answer, but the main point here is that I once again predicted exactly how the modern Supreme Court would handle this: badly. Stay tuned for a raft of nauseating federal lawsuits intent on stripping States of even more of their authority, all under the guise of the Fourteenth Amendment, and all with the participation of "conservatives" who fail to see that they are . . . shooting themselves in the foot.

UPDATE III -- It looks as though Steve Kinsella -- one of the few attorneys in the entire country who displays an understanding of the nature and purpose of the Constitution -- has received some harsh criticism from "libertarian" quarters on this last outing. I place "libertarian" in quotes because the critic in question advocates using federal power vis-a-vis the Fourteenth Amendment to micromanage States on a perpetual basis, which completely undermines the necessary mechanisms of liberty. Like their "conservative" brethren, too many "libertarians" are so eager to achieve their objectives that they will sacrifice any constitutional principle to do so, never grasping that this is both hypocritical and harmful.

Notable Contradiction

Every now and then I direct my attention to some of the contradictions plaguing modern thought, contradictions being the offspring of lethargy or lies. In the realm of American politics, the biggest contradiction I run into concerns the mutually-negating beliefs people espouse about the Constitution, particularly the following sort:

Position 1: "George W. Bush has been a disaster for America because he has violated the most sacred rights protected by the Constitution."

Position 2: "In the modern world, we can't possibly expect the federal government to follow the strict language of the Constitution, since the federal government has far greater duties now than when the Constitution was adopted."

People calling themselves "progressives" often voice these two sentiments without detecting for a moment that they completely contradict each other. Apparently, these people believe that only certain portions of the Constitution remain the supreme law of the land (e.g., habeas corpus and the right against self-incrimination), whereas other portions are items of mere historical interest (e.g., enumerated federal powers and presumptive State powers). The Constitution thus seems to have reached the status of scripture, with the faithful cutting out what they don't like and pasting together what they do.

What goes unnoticed is that as soon as you presume the ability to disregard any portion of the Constitution, you have unleashed the ability to disregard all of it, since every interested faction surely has its sights set on a unique prohibition that proves disadvantageous. If the "progressives" in our midst excoriate George W. Bush for disregarding the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, then we must excoriate them for disregarding the Tenth. They and George W. Bush are two sides of the same coin.

Distinguishing Truth From Fiction - Volume 1

The Internet is a technological marvel that grants us unfettered access to vast amounts of information, leading many people to conclude that ours is the most enlightened society ever. However, being well-informed does not equate to being educated or even productive. A man can possess vast knowledge yet still be a dangerous fool -- as a matter of fact, a fool becomes ever more dangerous the more information he acquires. This is one aspect of the Internet that often gets lost among all the hosannas about the age we inhabit. Facts do not speak for themselves, and if people lose the ability to derive truth from sterile facts, the Internet may do far more to destroy civilization than to preserve it.

My overarching goal with this site is not so much to convey facts (i.e., current events), but rather to convey the tools with which you can discern truth when confronting such facts, specifically in the spheres of American and global governance. With that in mind, this post will expose some of the fictions that plague the American political mindset today, arming you with some important truths with which to navigate the torrent of facts you regularly encounter.

Fiction Number 1 -- The Federal Government May Do Anything To Me As Long As It Does Not Violate The Bill Of Rights

How sad it is that so many Americans embrace this deadly fiction. The truth is exactly the opposite: the federal government may do nothing to you unless the Constitution authorizes it, given that the federal government is the repository of a specific and limited surrender of power from the States. The Bill Of Rights is a mere reminder of some of the most important limitations on federal power, but it is not an exhaustive list, which the Ninth Amendment makes clear. In short, the burden is on the federal government to prove its power, not on you to prove your rights.

Fiction Number 2 -- The States Must Follow The Same Constitutional Constraints As The Federal Government

This particular fiction often proves even more harmful than the first, since it encourages people to seek the assistance of the federal government when attacking and neutering the ability of each State's citizens to govern themselves in their own way.

To repeat, the federal government is a creation of the States and has only the limited powers that the Constitution delegates to it (e.g., national defense). The States kept the vast reservoir of powers not delegated -- as observed by the Tenth Amendment -- which covers a great deal more territory (e.g., public health, public safety, policing, licensure, etc.).

Here comes the part that most people cannot wrap their minds around, but which is neverthless the inescapable result of the Constitution's design: the Bill Of Rights does not restrain the States. Chief Justice John Marshall himself recognized this when holding that the purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to prohibit the harmful centralization of power in the federal government. State power is by its very nature already decentralized among the several States, who retain the power to do any number of things that the federal government may not, even if it goes against the Bill Of Rights (e.g., restraining harmful speech such as libel and slander; regulating gun ownership; limiting the usage of private property; etc.).

It was not until the twentieth century that the Supreme Court trashed its prior jurisprudence on the Fourteenth Amendment (whose goal was to protect former slaves and their descendants) in order to assert absolute dominion over each State's internal decisionmaking, all under the guise of honoring the Bill Of Rights. What so many champions of this process fail to grasp is that they have become "useful idiots" whom the feds have taken advantage of for the last seventy years to destroy State sovereignty, leaving us with the very centralization of power that the Bill Of Rights sought to avoid.

Fiction Number 3 -- The President As Commander-In-Chief May Send The Military Into Action Whenever He Wishes

Wrong again. Our (or at least, my) ancestors had grown so sick and tired of wars initiated at the behest of a king that they gave the war power to Congress. Once Congress approves military force, the President then steps in to oversee how that force is to be employed. Otherwise stated, "the President shall be Commander in Chief . . . when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Fiction Number 4 -- I Have The Right To Vote For President

No, you really don't. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution permits each State's legislature to choose its presidential electors however it wishes, whether it be by popular vote or a game of Russian roulette:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . . .

Direct elections for president occur only because each State's legislature has decided to allow it, and to be quite honest, this is probably unwise because it fosters the dangerous notion that the President may exercise direct control over us all. Populism is the handmaiden of authoritarianism, and Presidents hewed far more closely to their narrow constitutional role before the people began looking upon them as a directly-elected messiah.

That's all I have time for today, but I'll do my best to deliver more tools with which to pierce the factual fog all around you.

Now For Some Truly Great News, From Oklahoma Of All Places

If this is for real, it represents a major step forward in the struggle to save American civilization from the usurpers in Washington, D.C.: the Oklahoma legislature has declared that the Tumor is trampling the Constitution by exercising unenumerated powers, and therefore Oklahoma reclaims its sovereign right to do all things reserved to it under the Tenth Amendment. Here is the operative text:

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

I could hardly have said it better myself. This is a shot across the bow of the oligarchs who have wrenched our government from its constitutional moorings and set it to sail over a waterfall. If they persist in destroying the legacy our ancestors bequeathed us, then we can and should assert our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on our own.

One detail is worth special analysis: the citation to New York v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that the Tumor cannot command State legislatures to take a particular course of action (a holding paralleled in Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court held that the Tumor cannot commandeer the executive organs of the States). The curveball that Oklahoma must be wary of is that the Supreme Court has also stated, both in New York and in other decisions, that the Tumor may bribe the States into obedience with taxpayer money, such as when the States willingly raised the drinking age to 21 for fear of losing federal highway funds. If Oklahoma is serious about what it is doing, it must be prepared to reject the allure of federal funds and declare that such bribery is equally unconstitutional, since the federal spending power cannot be divorced from the federal enumerated powers (as James Madison himself noted).

Two Pieces Of Good (But Not Great) News

First, the Supreme Court did something very out of character the other day: it rendered an opinion upholding the Constitution, specifically by enforcing habeas corpus and recognizing that the Constitution applies even when the Tumor throws its weight around outside the confines of the United States. Few things give me greater joy than watching the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham go nuclear, so I will relish the moment and temporarily forget the mound of rotten Supreme Court jurisprudence that has destroyed the Tenth Amendment; engorged the powers of Congress; enslaved us to subsidize illegal aliens; and empowered unelected bureaucrats to fabricate rules carrying the force of law.

Second, the Irish have saved civilization again, this time by refusing to surrender their sovereignty to the new-and-improved European Union contained in the Lisbon Treaty. For the uninformed, the Lisbon Treaty sought to do away with the EU's slow, inter-governmental approach to political questions such as immigration policy, replacing it with centralized and "efficient" decisionmaking in Brussels. Chastened in 2005 by the popular rejection of the hideous European Constitution, the Eurocrats re-grouped and made sure to abolish popular voting this go-around, thus denying a voice to the very citizens whose sovereignty was on the chopping block. The Irish, though, have a constitution that people actually bother to obey, and that constitution mandated a popular vote. For the time being, therefore, Europe has preserved at least some vestiges of national sovereignty. Once again, I will relish the moment and forget for now that the Eurocrats intend to ratify the Lisbon Treaty anyway, which violates the EU's own internal rules and proves once again that the rule of law is becoming a subject for historians.

Benito McCain, Il Duce

So you don't go thinking that I have it in for Obama alone, it is clearer than ever that John McCain likewise holds an authoritarian conception of what his role as President would be. I just heard a snippet of McCain pronouncing not only that the government should investigate people who speculate in commodities such as oil, but also that oil companies must spend their money and energy developing alternative fuels. Although this word gets tossed around far too frequently, the shoe nevertheless fits: fascism. And I use this term even without referencing McCain's admitted desire to continue launching and waging aggressive wars abroad, which highly resembles Il Duce's rape of Ethiopia in the 1930s.

As developed by Benito Mussolini (a former socialist), the theory of fascism posits that private activity within a nation must be directed toward the national good -- as decreed by the political leaders, of course. At the time, Mussolini's theory was touted far and wide as the ingenious "third way" between capitalism (i.e., private citizens pursuing private interests) and socialism (i.e., no private sector whatsoever). The very word "fascism" springs from the collectivist symbolism of the fasces, or bundle of sticks that prove unbreakable when bound together. History proved this political theory wrong, but they don't teach that anymore.

It should go without saying that all of us -- even those who run oil companies -- have the inherent right to refrain from producing anything we choose not to, whether it's alternative fuels or candy bars. For a presidential candidate to openly declare otherwise and thereby embrace a disgraced and discredited ideology, yet escape being tarred and feathered, reflects poorly on the state of the American spirit.

Ron Paul Gets It (Mostly) Right

He's dead right when discussing Obama's bumper-sticker idealism, but he persists in erroneously believing that the Tumor can be brought back to constitutional compliance by reasoning with the national electorate. Perhaps it's a function of his age and sentimentalism, but he cannot admit to himself that there is no longer a national constituency for limited government -- perhaps there is a sectional one, but its voice will never be heard unless it secedes and embarks on sane self-governance.

EDIT: I was mistaken to imply that only a devoted cohort of constitutionalists should attempt secession. In truth, any group that feels so motivated should do so, since liberty is the natural outcome of multiple, competing, and small-scale sovereignties that must either adopt humble policies or risk the flight of humans and capital. The political class is well aware of this, which is the precise reason it is fighting tooth and nail to consolidate power above and beyond the nation-state (a political unit that has proved too small-fry for the unbounded power the political class now craves). Case in point, which nations have the lowest taxes and the most friendly banking systems? Small nations such as Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands, and Andorra (nations that also haven't initiated a war in quite some time).

It Never Ends

It took only ten seconds of watching CNN's election coverage the other night to be bombarded with lies. The announcer -- who it was hardly matters, since they're all empty vessels -- proclaimed that there are only two candidates left in the race, and that one of them would be president. Images of Obama and McCain then floated around to remove any doubts as to who those two candidates might be.

There was no mention of Ron Paul, whose supporters plan to attend the Republican convention (although the party bosses may pour hot lead on them). This omission is especially curious because CNN's website indeed lists him as a remaining candidate, so inconsistency is layered atop mendacity. There was also no mention of Bob Barr (Libertarian party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party); Ralph Nader (Independent); or Cynthia McKinney (Green party).

Granted, I don't care who wins the presidency, since no human should wield the unconstitutional and immoral political power now concentrated in that office. But it never ceases to amaze me how lies and disinformation reign in this the supposed advanced era of modernity. If there is a lesson here, it is that the mainstream media remain the handmaidens of power, having long since abjured any idealistic devotion to the pursuit of truth.

UPDATE: Ron Paul 's supporters will not try to storm the GOP convention after all, but rather will hold their own event close by. Probably wise, since the party thugs would have cracked their skulls if they dared voice support for someone other than McCain. What do you think this is, a nominating convention or something?

Why Exactly Is Obama's Nomination A Historic Moment?

Driving to the gym the other day, I was listening to a music station on the radio when the announcer came on and committed an unpardonable sin -- he attempted to be "relevant." The very reason I tune out talk radio is to avoid the thoroughly wrongheaded claptrap so endemic there, yet here was a music-station announcer holding forth on the supposedly momentous occasion of Obama's crowning as heir-apparent to the Democratic presidential nomination. Paraphrased, this is what the man said:

Now I'm not going to editorialize, but today America has taken a step forward. Surely Martin Luther King is up in heaven smiling down on Barack Obama.

Good grief, there are so many disturbing notions packed into this utterance that it's difficult to know where to begin.

The most obvious problem is that the man clearly IS editorializing -- he is not discussing factual matters such as the weather, but rather he is offering an opinion on the significance of a political event. His denial that this constitutes an editorial smacks of imperiousness and shows he perceives his statement as indisputable fact rather than debatable opinion. Presumably, if anyone dared voice disagreement with his assessment, he would write that person off as a crank or a racist, which is sadly how most political "debate" proceeds these days (i.e., no actual exchange of ideas, only disparagement of anyone who challenges mainstream platitudes). This is how "political correctness" earned its moniker, implying as it does that disagreement represents error.

"But wait," you might ask, "how exactly can you disagree with his statement?" Very easily. Obama's nomination is viewed as momentous not because of his political platform, which has nothing original in it whatsoever (not that his supporters ever bother to seriously analyze it). Instead, Obama's nomination is viewed as momentous because of Obama's skin color. And why is that considered crucial? Because it shows that America has moved beyond race! Hurray for doublethink. But even apart from that cognitive dissonance, there is nothing momentous about the anointing of yet another statist, collectivist, and sanctimonious politician who believes the federal government should micromanage society rather than merely safeguard it.

Which brings us to the part about MLK's looking down from heaven. First, if MLK was serious when stating that he yearned for the day when men are judged on their character rather than on their skin color, the present fixation on Obama as "the first black nominee for president" postpones that hope for another day. Second, note the religious overtones to this statement, with MLK as a sort of seraph guiding the political messiah come to deliver us from our sins. That a casual observer would embrace this imagery confirms that a mundane concept of salvation has saturated the American mind, carrying with it the urge to construct heaven on Earth. This is the same emotional impulse that often drives governments to "reform" anyone who stands in the way of the holy work at hand, even if it kills them (e.g., fascism, socialism, and even worse, Yankees -- just kidding, Yankees aren't worse).

All of this miasma has seeped into a popular mind that lacks the filtering mechanisms to keep it out, which is due in no small part to the death of education. No longer do students learn about our political and spiritual heritage, since that does not satisfy the more immediate aim of earning money. If anything, a full education represents a major hindrance to fitting into this modern politicized society -- employers and their political benefactors don't like people who ask questions, but rather prefer mentally-stunted drones who nod their heads on cue and perform their assigned tasks with the slavish devotion of a donkey.