What is the liberty minded person of conscience to do about voting for president? The hard core anarchists say to not vote at all as a protest, whilst the pragmatic person says to vote for Romney or we get another four years of you-know-who.
I'm puzzled.
What is the right message to send with my vote? In reality, my effort counts but little, but there is still a personal principle to consider. I have to do the right thing, regardless of the marginal utility of the action.
This is over-thinking the problem, but I see four options for the person who believes in small government, in order of intensity:
1. Stay home and arrange the sock drawer - Don't show up, and thereby send a message that we won't be dupes of the system which produces such horrible candidates, instead of principled ones.
2. Show up at the polling place, look around contemptuously, shake the dust off of your feet, and return home - this option avoids the allegation of apathy, and preserves the principle of disdain for the establishment insider choices they give us to rule over us.
3. Vote for Ron Paul - A wasted vote, which sends a message that their favored cronies are no good, any of 'em.
4. Vote for Mittens Romney - This is not necessarily an evil thing, although for some it would be unthinkable. However, many persons of integrity will vote for the Mittster, knowing full well he is a Lizard Person, because the alternative is to re-elect the usurping, despotic, plundering, criminal tyrant.
Each of these positions has their adherents, who go on in wordy articles about how it is the only principled stand, and anyone who would do otherwise is a traitor, a fool, or a worm.
I'm still puzzled.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Monday, March 14, 2011
Asparagus Grower Welfare Subsidies!
Calamity looms for those farmers who miss the deadline for applying for Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment Program. In the same spirit as cowboy poetry festival subsidies, the Asparagus-Growing-American community has now become a welfare group, apparently like most farmers.
Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment Program (ALAP)
Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment (ALAP) Program compensates producers for revenue losses resulting from imports during the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Eligible asparagus producers will receive a market loss payment based upon the marketing category of their 2003 crop of asparagus. The 2008 Farm Bill provides up to $15 million in market loss payments to 2003-crop asparagus producers.
To qualify for ALAP, producers must: Have produced and marketed asparagus in commercial quantities in the U.S. during both crop years 2003 and 2007, and; Meet highly erodible land and wetland provisions. Additional ALAP payment eligibility requirements will apply for the applicable marketing category that exceeds available funding. ALAP payments will be calculated based upon an eligible producer’s 2003 asparagus production quantity for fresh marketed and/or process or frozen market asparagus.
Maximum payment rates have been determined according to the following:
Marketing Category - Processed or Frozen Market Crop Asparagus - Maximum Payment Rate - $1.08 per pound. Fresh-Crop Asparagus - $1.06 per pound
Sign-up for the ALAP ends on April 8, 2011. Please contact County Executive Director, Ted C. Smiarowski, Jr. at the Hampshire/Hampden County FSA Office 413-585-1000 extension 2 or your local County FSA Office for further information.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Seven (Plus One) Glaring Omissions From the U.S. Constitution
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
- James Madison, Federalist No. 51.
Recent presidents and supreme courts have been leaping over, tunneling under, and bolting around the restraints on government power set out in the United States Constitution. They ignore and routinely exceed its enumerated powers, and disregard the personal rights which it protects.
So we scratch our heads wistfully and search for the root cause of the problem. Is the constitution itself wanting in some respects, or is the tendency to grow government inherent in the human condition? Or, is the problem an amalgam of the two ideas, namely that the founders underestimated the ferocity with which American leaders of the last one hundred years would transgress the limits of the constitution. Perhaps they failed to erect strong enough barriers in the constitution to withstand the expansion of government by the likes of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush and Obama.
Perhaps modern politicos feel contempt for the small government envisioned by the founders and set out in the constitution. Those of that turn of mind may also be inclined to exploit ambiguities and loopholes in the Constitution itself, interpreting its words in light of their proclivity for enlarging their own power.
Those who make it to the top of any field rarely shrink from an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Amoral American leaders have found a well-trodden road to enhance their power at the expense of the freedom of others, using the constitution as a fig leaf and even disguising their actions as patriotic or compassionate. (e.g., "It's for the children".)
Is the constitution itself to blame for exploding debt, unchecked regulations, vast expansions of government powers, or is it just human nature? The growth of government, starting almost once the ink was dry in 1787, has motivated any number of persons to fish around for some first causes. James Monroe, the sixth U.S. president, lamented that entropy was a natural process:
How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve. How difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism.
Jefferson said it even more succinctly: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Judge Learned Hand, a brilliant and complex figure who served in the state and federal courts during the first half of the twentieth century (and who definitely has the best judge name of all time), opined,
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon law and upon courts. These are false hopes.... Liberty lies in the hearts of men and woman. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it... While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no courts to save it.In Judge Hand's view, no constitution, no matter how well constructed, and no judiciary, no matter how wise, can substitute for a people with an internal conscience which disposes them to liberty and to respect the person and property of others. In fact, such persons don't need a constitution, because no one needs to tell them not to plunder their neighbors. Note that the constitution is written to restrain politicians from doing that to us.
If men were angels, said Madison, we would not need government. The problem of government, however, is that it devolves rather quickly into becoming an overlord, a tyrant. As it states in The Book of Common Prayer: "There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted."
So there you have it. The best system of government devised by the finest thinkers will only operate properly with a people already predisposed to liberty. No document will restrain those who are not intent on preserving their freedom. And any such system will deteriorate over time, giving way to tyranny and corruption. This is not a heartening prospect.
Given those realities, any attempt at drafting a durable constitution which intends to preserve liberty for the longest term possible, must be virtually bullet-proof, fool-proof, and tamper-proof. Quite a tall order.
Given those realities, any attempt at drafting a durable constitution which intends to preserve liberty for the longest term possible, must be virtually bullet-proof, fool-proof, and tamper-proof. Quite a tall order.
In light of current developments in our governance, our founders didn't lock the U.S. Constitution down adequately to protect it from those who would either disregard it or would re-interpret it in light of their own political agendas. It is time to take a cold and clinical look at the limitations of our founding document to see where it is wanting in some respects. By underestimating the ravages of time and human nature, even though they were attentive to these dangers, our founders may have unwittingly invited the current state of affairs.
Herewith are seven (plus an extra) gaping, glaring, gargantuan omissions from the U.S. Constitution, with the benefits of 21st Century hindsight, and my suggested fixes:
1. The Constitution does not protect property rights.
The foundation of liberty is the ownership of property, and the most fundamental duty of government is to protect that ownership from all other claims. One of the clearest distinctions between countries in which it is possible to have a "civilized" life and one in which it is not, is the extent to which government protects property.
Why did our Bill Of Rights omit the most important right of all? Perhaps it was assumed that all property rights would be protected at the state level, and that current interference with property by the federal government would have been inconceivable.
We surely need protection for our property now, at both the federal and state levels. Federal encroachment on property has intensified on many fronts in the last few decades. The government now justifies the taking of property for wetlands violations, for environmental or endangered species preservation, for taxes, for possession an unapproved herb, and even for private development projects. State and local governments disrespect the privacy of property with just as much impunity, and they are sometimes worse.
The constitution has only a paltry protection for property rights, and that operates only when government takes land for a public purpose, called "eminent domain." Under the Fifth Amendment to the constitution, government is required to pay a fair compensation for any land so taken. It often does not do that, especially when it can deem the taking to only be partial, rather than entire.
THE FIX:
Make all land title "allodial", or absolute and total, rather than continue in our current "feudal" system of title records.
Under our current title system, an owner only gets a partial title to land when they receive a deed, but government retains a superseding power over the land, which allows it to take the land for taxes or other bad reasons. We imported this quirky land title system from England at our founding, which vests the ultimate ownership of land in the "lord", the government, rather than in the record owner. As incredible as it seems, government lord owns your land, and allows you to occupy it only so long as you pay the lord all of the fees he demands.
Under our current title system, an owner only gets a partial title to land when they receive a deed, but government retains a superseding power over the land, which allows it to take the land for taxes or other bad reasons. We imported this quirky land title system from England at our founding, which vests the ultimate ownership of land in the "lord", the government, rather than in the record owner. As incredible as it seems, government lord owns your land, and allows you to occupy it only so long as you pay the lord all of the fees he demands.
This system originated with William the Conqueror (in 1066), when he conquered England, and retained ultimate title to all land. He let a few barons have a lesser quantum of title to vast tracts of land, as long as they gave him compensation by use of their knights to fight battles for him. Over time, the system refined and developed. Feudal serfs could then have a leasehold tenancy, which required them to pay a percentage of crops from the land to the "landlord". I'm greatly simplifying a much more complicated and evolved system, but either the ultimate right to control the land is vested in the government or in you, the guy who thinks he owns it, but really doesn't.
Things have not changed much. We need to jettison this thousand year old system, and grant full, absolute "allodial" title to land, which cannot be re-taken by the government if you don't pay taxes, or there is a puddle on it that runs afoul of some environmental law, or if a greedy politician has been greased by a land developer who wants the land by eminent domain.
Right now, when you buy a house, your deed contains the statement that your ownership is "in fee simple". That means you are subject to a fiefdom, being a serf on your own land, a servant of the real lord, the government.
The fix is simple: Grant full allodial title to land, which will eliminate all kinds of mischief by government.
2. The Constitution does not protect family rights.
The founders would never have suspected, thought or dreamed that they would need to protect families from federal government intrusion on a personal level. That would have been as superfluous as including a clause to protect us from Martians.
Nonetheless, the feds have recently marched into the business of direct intervention into families, and in a massive way. The worst, but by no means the only one is by extravagant funding of state child protective services agencies, by writing their laws, and by maintaining a massive federal bureaucracy, called the "Administration of Children and Families", to ensure its continued tyranny in this area.
Since 1974, when Walter Mondale got the "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" passed into law, government now has prior rights over your children, just like feudal land title system gives them prior right to ownership in your land.
The U.S. Supreme Court has pretended that you have a fundamental interest in the care and upbringing of your children. However, that has given way to a competing principle: That the government has a "compelling state interest" in interfering with your family when its agents decide to do so. It must educate your children, it must protect your children from abuse and neglect, it must make you use car seats, use only toothbrushes with so many bristles, and so on.
In theory, in order to interfere with parental rights, the government must show that this compelling state interest requires them to override your rights if they are to take your children. In practice, courts let them do it virtually without stint.
In theory, in order to interfere with parental rights, the government must show that this compelling state interest requires them to override your rights if they are to take your children. In practice, courts let them do it virtually without stint.
This protection of children by government may seem sensible, until you consider the unintended consequences. In practice, all a social worker has to do to take your child legally is to - correctly or falsely, it doesn't matter - accuse you of neglect, of keeping your child out of government school, of spanking your child, of possessing a forbidden herb, of having the wrong religion, of not getting enough medical attention, of getting too much medical attention. Then, their goon squad enters your home, pries your screaming, terrified child right out of your arms at gunpoint, and kidnaps him or her. After a trial held after a year or longer, they terminate your parental rights and keep the child permanently.
These social workers are typically in their twenties, childless, clueless, and trained at a university which has taught them that you are part of a repressive patriarchy, and that your child should be liberated to be with his or her proper parent, the state. And they usually cannot be held liable, due to the hideous doctrine of government immunity, another dreadful legal abomination that we inherited from the English. (More on that below.)
Won't happen to you? Hah. At any one time, 500,000(!) children are in state custody in the United States, many of whom will never see their parents again.
The federal government also funds a massive educational bureaucracy which will take your child if thwarted. Try keeping your child in your care, instead of turning him or her over to your masters in the government school. Officers of the law will pay you a visit and file court action. The state child protective services will get involved. Life will not be good.
THE FIX:
We need a parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing no government interference with families without a warrant, after proof of probable cause that a parent has committed an actual crime against the child. Thus, genuine abuse will be confronted.
This should not be the hackneyed, bogus, proposed parental rights amendment that has been circulated heavily by an organization called parentalrights.com. That one still defers to the 'compelling state interest' in the child, and thus does not impede the "child protectors". All they have to do to get around it is simply declare that in this case, it is necessary and compelling to take the child, and the court will defer to the experience of the agency.
We need the equivalent of "allodial title" to our children built into the constitution, so over-ambitious social workers cannot fulfill their kidnapping quotas on the backs of your family, like a police officer writing tickets on the last day of the month.
We need the equivalent of "allodial title" to our children built into the constitution, so over-ambitious social workers cannot fulfill their kidnapping quotas on the backs of your family, like a police officer writing tickets on the last day of the month.
3. The Constitution does not eliminate immunity from prosecution for government agents.
A recent CNN article illustrates the problem:
A recent CNN article illustrates the problem:
An Arizona state senator involved in an apparent freeway-shoulder scuffle with his girlfriend was not detained because he has immunity from arrest while the legislature is in session, police said.The girlfriend, not being a privileged tax eater, was not so lucky. She went to jail.
When a government thug steals your land, your money, your child or your guns without due process, you will have a terrible time holding said thug accountable, because of the vile doctrine of immunity, which we inherited from our forbears across the pond.
In England, the king could do no wrong. He was the sovereign, and he was immune from lawsuits. So were his henchmen, er, assistants, since they worked for the king. Based on that historical precedent, sovereign immunity is now granted to judges and prosecutors and a number of other favored professions in this country. The immunity means that they cannot be sued for any action done in the official performance of their duties, no matter how dishonest, corrupt, or even in-your-face fraudulent that action is.
The argument for such protection has a superficial logic. We do not want judges tormented by lawsuits from every low-life perp whom he sentences to jail, because the defendant just didn't like the verdict. The judge or prosecutor would spend large amounts of time and resources defending against such suits, rather than attend to their duties.
In reality, judges and prosecutors hide behind this shield of immunity to defend bad behavior. Whenever there is no accountability you will find corruption. Since a judge cannot be held liable for anything done on the bench, they have no fear of over-reaching, imposing personal agendas, carrying out vendettas, taking bribes, and other somewhat ignoble acts. Only if the judge does something not related to the actual functioning of the office, is he or she subject to civil suit. This would be rare, such as if a judge slugged a defendant. Run-of-the-mill bribery and judicial bias, however, are totally protected.
There is almost no law in any jurisdiction granting this immunity. It has been illegally enacted by judges, acting as legislators, giving themselves this protection. Only the legislature can rightfully pass laws, but this has not deterred judges from doing so, up to and including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, from acting like one-man legislatures, and enacting immunity laws for themselves.
Judges have also extended a slightly less potent version of this immunity protection to a number of other favored insider professions, again without legislative permission, to include court guardians, social workers, psychologists on court evaluations, police officers, and to other legal and police-state categories. This version of immunity is called "qualified immunity", and requires dismissal of any civil lawsuit against a government agent acting in their official capacity in one of these professions, unless their conduct was clearly unconstitutional. It rarely is found to be so.
THE FIX:
Eliminate governmental immunity at every level of government, federal, state and local, for all but core functions of judicial work. Every other act by every other government operative, no matter in what capacity or profession, should be accountable to the public by way of a civil lawsuit.
Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, written by John Adams in 1780, puts it perfectly:
All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all time accountable to them.
You just can't improve on that wording. Any persons living in Massachusetts should be asking, "How can ANY government employee have immunity, given that clear language?" Indeed.
4. The Constitution has no means to enforce violations of its terms.
With the rare exceptions of impeachment for treason or other "high crimes or misdemeanors", the constitution has no enforcement mechanism for violations of its terms. It is not self-enforcing at all. Impeachment is a lengthy, cumbersome and difficult remedy, and can only be used for the most serious infractions, such as Bill Clinton's relationship with an intern. Well, maybe that isn't a good example. Or maybe it is, illustrating that mundane transgressions can be the subject of ruthless witch hunts, while glaring treason and corruption often go unpunished.
In reality, the document needs a simple, clear procedure to enforce itself against any government agent who exceeds its enumerated powers, or interferes with rights protected under its amendments. Such conduct should be considered grounds for immediate termination from any government job, and a court should impose fines or even criminal penalties against any person or entity which engaged in such behavior.
The current civil rights law, set out in 42 U.S. C. Section 1983, is wholly inadequate to the task. It only stops a very limited range of constitutional violations, and the exceptions made by judges have nearly swallowed the rule.
THE FIX:
Add an amendment to allow simple enforcement in court of ANY violation of the clear words of the constitution by any government agent in any department, branch or agency, whether executive, judicial or legislative, and whether that violation consisted of exceeding an enumerated power, or by infringing on a right protected by the document.
After such an amendment was in place, Congress would only need to meet a few days each year. Bureaucrats would fear to tread before they took any action.
As Jefferson pointed out, government should fear the people, not the other way around.
5. The Constitution does not forbid a central bank.
The Federal Reserve System, usually called "The Fed", was the unrealized goal of Alexander Hamilton, and the most anti-Jeffersonian institution one can imagine. In theory, the Fed's twin mandates are to keep the currency and employment stable. Under its stewardship, the U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its value in a century and unemployment has soared. Someone must be unclear on the concept.
In essence - and this is greatly simplified - it creates money out of thin air by having one of its member banks, and then end users, borrow vaporous funds. Poof, there is money. If we did that, we would be in jail. When central bankers do this, they go to nice parties with rich bankers and important Beautiful People.
The Fed is unaccountable to anyone but the shadowy bankers whose interest it serves. It refuses to be audited, another ticket to jail if any other financial business likewise refused to be investigated by regulators. It could be, and probably is, running an operation about as ethical as the one run by Bernie Madoff.
At two other points in our history we have had central banks, but they were each dissolved in time. The current system has been in place since 1913, and was passed into law by Congress under quite suspicious circumstances on Christmas eve. Then president Wilson signed the bill into the law.
Where did the other 97% of the value of our money go? It did not just evaporate. Holders of dollar-denominated assets lost value to insiders due to inflation caused by the fed, and to those at the front end of the Ponzi scheme of money creation, just like Madoff's customers.
THE FIX:
First, audit the fed, and its handmaidens, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the godzilla sized mortgage buyers. Then, eliminate them and never let another Bank of the United States arise again, via constitutional amendment. The Constitution already allows the federal government to "coin" money, meaning to use rare metals as a store of value and a medium of exchange. Handled properly, even a sophisticated economy can prosper on a metal standard. In fact, it absolutely cannot prosper if it is not on such a standard. No nation has.
The dollar should again be defined as a particular weight of gold and silver. History shows that works as a means of thwarting inflation, except when ruthless tyrants "clip" the coins or debase the metal in them. That would be hard to do in our technological society.
Lastly, anyone in charge of The Fed needs to stand trial for counterfeiting and for high crimes, for sinking our economy. Bernie Madoff needs some company in jail.
In essence - and this is greatly simplified - it creates money out of thin air by having one of its member banks, and then end users, borrow vaporous funds. Poof, there is money. If we did that, we would be in jail. When central bankers do this, they go to nice parties with rich bankers and important Beautiful People.
The Fed is unaccountable to anyone but the shadowy bankers whose interest it serves. It refuses to be audited, another ticket to jail if any other financial business likewise refused to be investigated by regulators. It could be, and probably is, running an operation about as ethical as the one run by Bernie Madoff.
At two other points in our history we have had central banks, but they were each dissolved in time. The current system has been in place since 1913, and was passed into law by Congress under quite suspicious circumstances on Christmas eve. Then president Wilson signed the bill into the law.
Where did the other 97% of the value of our money go? It did not just evaporate. Holders of dollar-denominated assets lost value to insiders due to inflation caused by the fed, and to those at the front end of the Ponzi scheme of money creation, just like Madoff's customers.
THE FIX:
First, audit the fed, and its handmaidens, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the godzilla sized mortgage buyers. Then, eliminate them and never let another Bank of the United States arise again, via constitutional amendment. The Constitution already allows the federal government to "coin" money, meaning to use rare metals as a store of value and a medium of exchange. Handled properly, even a sophisticated economy can prosper on a metal standard. In fact, it absolutely cannot prosper if it is not on such a standard. No nation has.
The dollar should again be defined as a particular weight of gold and silver. History shows that works as a means of thwarting inflation, except when ruthless tyrants "clip" the coins or debase the metal in them. That would be hard to do in our technological society.
Lastly, anyone in charge of The Fed needs to stand trial for counterfeiting and for high crimes, for sinking our economy. Bernie Madoff needs some company in jail.
6. The Constitution does not limit spending, taxation and borrowing.
The Constitution does limit Congress to enumerated powers, and to spending money only for those purposes. However, Congress just acts as though there are no limits to spending, taxing and borrowing, by relying upon several clever work-arounds in the document itself, such as the "general welfare clause", the "necessary and proper clause", and the "commerce clause", among others.
This spending profligacy is not new. Madison himself had to admonish Congress that if can spend on anything it wants under the pretext of the "general welfare", then it negates the whole idea of enumerated powers. Why specifically list them as the only powers which Congress may exercise, if the "general welfare" clause expands its authority to an unlimited extent. Alas, Congress did not listen to Madison then nor to anyone now.
Congress has always been fond of spending, taxing and borrowing, but it could not indulge its wasteful ways as heroically in the past, as it has now been able to do in the last few decades. Wealthy and gullible Japan and China have lent us nearly a trillion dollars each, allowing Congress to live well beyond its means. The Fed has bellied up to the bar and thrown a lot of money around for deficit spending.
Congress had trouble collecting huge amounts of taxes in an earlier era, when there was no income tax. Presidents Taft and Wilson solved the problem, and ensured an unlimited flow of pilf to the federal government, via a constitutional amendment that for the first time allowed an income tax to be collected. The 16th Amendment states:
In sum, we have been on a decades-long spending binge, borrowing binge, taxing binge, and inflation binge. Our poor old body politic can't take it any more, and it shows.
THE FIX:
Congress won't respect the limits of the powers enumerated in the constitution, so it doesn't make sense to pass even more laws that it will also ignore. That is what modern Solons do when the existing laws fail, in order to make themselves feel better about failing to obey the laws that they already passed. "Stop us before we kill again," they seem to be saying. "We can't respect the law, so we should pass some more laws, and see if we might obey those." They will not, of course.
So, the fix cannot just be a new law or even a constitutional amendment. Congress doesn't care for such trifles, nor does just about anybody in Washington.
The only thing which such incorrigible delinquents understand is to take their toys away. So, the other two branches need to ignore the artifice of immunity claimed by the Members of Congress, prosecute them ruthlessly for exceeding their enumerated powers, and eliminate all perks, pensions, and even their salary for non-compliance. If it still keeps up, they can join the folks from the Fed in jail.
We are dealing with little brats, who need a good whoopin'. It is the only thing they will understand.
7. The Constitution Does Not Restrain the Fourth Branch of Government - the Administrative state.
Most of the accretions of government addressed in this essay fall under the category of the "administrative state", which has become a fourth branch of government unto itself. This branch is dangerous, because agencies combine the powers of all three constitutional branches into one unit, thus losing the checks and balances which the constitution took pangs to construct.
The so-called alphabet soup agencies that we are familiar with, such as the IRS, the FDA, the FCC, the FTC, the EEOC, the EPA, agencies inside HHS, and literally thousands of other players big and small, function like little dictatorships, because they are allowed to exercise all government functions which we constitutionally separate. Here is how it works:
Congress delegates its legislative power to an agency, by allowing it to write and pass laws which they call 'regulations', as though the agency was Congress. After the agency enacts its own laws, it starts imposing them on the victimized populace, using executive power. Then, if the people fail to obey the laws, the agency convenes its own pretend courts, dress up people like judges in black robes, and exact penalties as if they were actually courts. These 'courts' do not hew to our traditional notions of due process or the rule of law which citizens expect from actual courts.
For example, take the IRS. The Internal Robbery Society, like most other agencies, makes and enacts its own voluminous regulations as though it had the legislative power of Congress, which must be followed as though they were law. These regulations are not uniform or fair, and favor certain politically connected groups and disfavor others.
The IRS also administers the regulations, as would any executive agency, by making everyone file tax returns, collecting money, and tormenting the citizenry.
Finally, it exercises the judicial power by running a so-called "tax court", which Congress oversees. This is a fake court, not authorized under the judiciary power of Article III of the constitution. However, you would not know this, since the fake judges wear black robes. However, they steal the citizen's real money, and throw them into real jail for non-compliance.
Most agencies, on both the state and federal level, have devolved into these hybrid monsters, exercising the powers of all three branches, which our founders carefully intended to keep separate.
THE FIX:
End the judicial and legislative powers of agencies. It is bad enough that they exercise often unconstitutional executive power, but they must never be allowed to exercise the other two functions. In reality, most agencies would be wholly eliminated by an honest application of constitutional limits. Clipping their legislative and judicial wings would be a good start.
The Constitution does limit Congress to enumerated powers, and to spending money only for those purposes. However, Congress just acts as though there are no limits to spending, taxing and borrowing, by relying upon several clever work-arounds in the document itself, such as the "general welfare clause", the "necessary and proper clause", and the "commerce clause", among others.
This spending profligacy is not new. Madison himself had to admonish Congress that if can spend on anything it wants under the pretext of the "general welfare", then it negates the whole idea of enumerated powers. Why specifically list them as the only powers which Congress may exercise, if the "general welfare" clause expands its authority to an unlimited extent. Alas, Congress did not listen to Madison then nor to anyone now.
Congress has always been fond of spending, taxing and borrowing, but it could not indulge its wasteful ways as heroically in the past, as it has now been able to do in the last few decades. Wealthy and gullible Japan and China have lent us nearly a trillion dollars each, allowing Congress to live well beyond its means. The Fed has bellied up to the bar and thrown a lot of money around for deficit spending.
Congress had trouble collecting huge amounts of taxes in an earlier era, when there was no income tax. Presidents Taft and Wilson solved the problem, and ensured an unlimited flow of pilf to the federal government, via a constitutional amendment that for the first time allowed an income tax to be collected. The 16th Amendment states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.Since that time, the Congress has extracted breathtaking amounts of wealth from us. But, unsated, it continued to spend and borrow trillions of dollars from our citizens which we will never be able to pay back, in the form of T-Bills, T-Bonds, savings bonds, and looting of the Social Security trust fund.
In sum, we have been on a decades-long spending binge, borrowing binge, taxing binge, and inflation binge. Our poor old body politic can't take it any more, and it shows.
THE FIX:
Congress won't respect the limits of the powers enumerated in the constitution, so it doesn't make sense to pass even more laws that it will also ignore. That is what modern Solons do when the existing laws fail, in order to make themselves feel better about failing to obey the laws that they already passed. "Stop us before we kill again," they seem to be saying. "We can't respect the law, so we should pass some more laws, and see if we might obey those." They will not, of course.
So, the fix cannot just be a new law or even a constitutional amendment. Congress doesn't care for such trifles, nor does just about anybody in Washington.
The only thing which such incorrigible delinquents understand is to take their toys away. So, the other two branches need to ignore the artifice of immunity claimed by the Members of Congress, prosecute them ruthlessly for exceeding their enumerated powers, and eliminate all perks, pensions, and even their salary for non-compliance. If it still keeps up, they can join the folks from the Fed in jail.
We are dealing with little brats, who need a good whoopin'. It is the only thing they will understand.
7. The Constitution Does Not Restrain the Fourth Branch of Government - the Administrative state.
Most of the accretions of government addressed in this essay fall under the category of the "administrative state", which has become a fourth branch of government unto itself. This branch is dangerous, because agencies combine the powers of all three constitutional branches into one unit, thus losing the checks and balances which the constitution took pangs to construct.
The so-called alphabet soup agencies that we are familiar with, such as the IRS, the FDA, the FCC, the FTC, the EEOC, the EPA, agencies inside HHS, and literally thousands of other players big and small, function like little dictatorships, because they are allowed to exercise all government functions which we constitutionally separate. Here is how it works:
Congress delegates its legislative power to an agency, by allowing it to write and pass laws which they call 'regulations', as though the agency was Congress. After the agency enacts its own laws, it starts imposing them on the victimized populace, using executive power. Then, if the people fail to obey the laws, the agency convenes its own pretend courts, dress up people like judges in black robes, and exact penalties as if they were actually courts. These 'courts' do not hew to our traditional notions of due process or the rule of law which citizens expect from actual courts.
For example, take the IRS. The Internal Robbery Society, like most other agencies, makes and enacts its own voluminous regulations as though it had the legislative power of Congress, which must be followed as though they were law. These regulations are not uniform or fair, and favor certain politically connected groups and disfavor others.
The IRS also administers the regulations, as would any executive agency, by making everyone file tax returns, collecting money, and tormenting the citizenry.
Finally, it exercises the judicial power by running a so-called "tax court", which Congress oversees. This is a fake court, not authorized under the judiciary power of Article III of the constitution. However, you would not know this, since the fake judges wear black robes. However, they steal the citizen's real money, and throw them into real jail for non-compliance.
Most agencies, on both the state and federal level, have devolved into these hybrid monsters, exercising the powers of all three branches, which our founders carefully intended to keep separate.
THE FIX:
End the judicial and legislative powers of agencies. It is bad enough that they exercise often unconstitutional executive power, but they must never be allowed to exercise the other two functions. In reality, most agencies would be wholly eliminated by an honest application of constitutional limits. Clipping their legislative and judicial wings would be a good start.
8. The Constitution does not provide for secession from the union.
Oh, c'mon. This issue was fully and finally decided back in 1865, at Appomattox Courthouse, and doesn't need to be reconsidered.
Yes, it does. It is the only escape hatch for responsible persons who simply want to live under responsible constitutional government, but cannot, because Congress, Courts and the executive agencies simply will not let them.
When the several states decided to cede certain powers to a central federal government, the states deliberately retained most of their powers, including the power to secede. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not specifically delegated to the central government are reserved to the states and the people. Since there is no clause concerning perpetual union in the constitution, or a prohibition on secession, the power to withdraw from the union is reserved to and may be exercised by the states.
THE FIX:
Let's put it right in the constitution in black and white: A clause which explicitly allows a state to peacefully withdraw from the union, by a two-thirds majority of its voting citizens.
Yes, it does. It is the only escape hatch for responsible persons who simply want to live under responsible constitutional government, but cannot, because Congress, Courts and the executive agencies simply will not let them.
When the several states decided to cede certain powers to a central federal government, the states deliberately retained most of their powers, including the power to secede. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not specifically delegated to the central government are reserved to the states and the people. Since there is no clause concerning perpetual union in the constitution, or a prohibition on secession, the power to withdraw from the union is reserved to and may be exercised by the states.
THE FIX:
Let's put it right in the constitution in black and white: A clause which explicitly allows a state to peacefully withdraw from the union, by a two-thirds majority of its voting citizens.
Conclusion
We may now be seeing past errors in the Constitution with more clarity, which had been long dormant. We may now be experiencing the unraveling of a good experiment in nation building, because of treasonous modern leaders who refuse to respect the provisions of the constitution. Either way, we should consider the foregoing matters of grave concern, and set about repairing them before further damage is done.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Mr. President, Have Pity on the Real Working Man
In the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, union teachers cry out, "It's for the children", meaning, give us more money. The Jesse Jackson sycophants join them, screaming, "No justice, no peace." President Obama sides with the union. More to the point, commentator Gary North asks if we are seeing a replay of the movie, Blazing Saddles.
But I say: Mr. President, have pity on the working man. You know, the productive class, the taxpayers, the ones who pay those hundred thousand dollar teacher's salaries. The real working man.
But there will be no pity from the president. Mr. Obama pretends that he is on the side of the working man against the evil forces that oppress the noble laborer. But he is on the wrong side of history here. It will eventually be acknowledged that it is the unions who are at war with the productive citizens. Meanwhile, as Randy Newman sang, "Mr. President, have pity on the working man!"
My, how things have changed. These striking teachers are not the poor "working man" of Randy Newman's song, who tries to elicit pity and help from an aloof president.
We've taken all you've given,
But it's gettin' hard to make a livin'.
Mr. President have pity on the working man.
We ain’t asking you to love us.
You may place yourself high above us.
Mr. President have pity on the working man.
Unions once pretended to represent the working man when most unions were in the private sector. Now that the public sector unions have ascended to power, they take from the working man to support themselves at a lofty station. The president won't admit it, but he has oppressed the real working man, by taking the sides of the parasites and the barbarians. Long live the government unions, where a government job doesn't mean actually working.
No Justice, No Piece (Of the Pie)
Ironies abound in Wisconsin union politics. Teachers there have twisted the urban street chant, "No justice, no peace", into a greed-fueled demand, oblivious of its true meaning. They don't want 'justice'; They want money, and to use government power to get it from the parents of the children they are employed to teach, most of whom make less money than the teachers do.
Is it justice to take the pay of the poor person at the point of a gun to give to richer teachers? Is it justice to demand that parents pay a teacher's health insurance premiums of over twenty thousand dollars per year, when many of the parents have no insurance at all? Is it justice to demand full time pay for part-time work, a status not enjoyed by most of those dragooned into paying for la dolce vita enjoyed by teachers?
To Mr. Obama and the teachers, 'justice' means that the state must give in to the union demands for more money and benefits. So, collecting more from the working man is the only path to peace. That sounds more like extortion than justice. Since the teachers unions made their demand for justice while illegally playing hooky from their posts at school, then maybe they should feel the sting of actual justice, and should be fired. Maybe they would learn the correct meaning of the term. When this is over, how will teachers ever have credibility in the eyes of parents and children to teach a moral world view?
When Jesse Jackson shows up at a protest, cameras following of course, and the cries of "No Justice, No Peace" begin to ring out in the street, the evil overlords are supposed to give way to the demands of the downtrodden union mooks.
It wasn't supposed to happen the way it did so far. The protesters were not supposed to be exposed as the overlords, and the taxpayers were not supposed to create a ruckus. They should pay. The state always makes them pay, so why shouldn't they pay this time, too?
The Worm Has Turned.
This Wisconsin incident has confounded the usual analysis about who are the good guys and the bad guys. The teachers and President Obama have used the usual class-warfare rhetoric of the socialist left to fool the lumpenproletariat. But it hasn't worked this time, perhaps because the teacher's exalted financial station has been exposed as much better than that of the guy watching the protest on TV. Can a teacher earning a hundred grand a year really be a victim of injustice?
The teachers have nonetheless attempted to portray themselves as victims, while the reality of their over-abundance has been revealed. This typically did not happen when the state controlled the flow of information, but the stubborn facts are now disclosed rather quickly to the watching public. The teachers are revealed to be out only for themselves, rather than "for the children", as that famous Clintonian justification goes. It worked for him.
Maybe none of the time-tested script will work this time. Maybe the government "haves" have finally overplayed their hand at the expense of the "working man" in a time of widespread economic trouble. Maybe the slogans will not inspire the poor and middle class to proffer yet more of their incomes to the government class. Maybe the cry, "It's for the children" won't be as effective a means to guilt manipulation as it was in the hands of the master manipulator himself, Bill Clinton.
Maybe this trend will even spread to other states, and public servants earning a hundred thousand dollars plus per year will not be able to continue to intimidate the working man who must support them on only a fraction of that salary. Maybe the worm has turned.
If Obama Really Had Pity on the Working Man
Mr. Obama, when are you going to get on the side of the real working man? You must snub the union in favor of taxpayers, but that is not nearly enough. To really affirm justice and peace, you must side with families over the state, and get the government out of the education business entirely. Then the fight over stealing from the working man would cease. It is only a conflict because of the decision to take education out of the home and put it in the hands of the state. It there was no giant pile of tax money to fight over, then there would be no fight in the street right now.
Here is the right message for Mr. Obama to deliver to the long-suffering citizens of Wisconsin if he has any pity for the working man. It would insure his re-election in 2012:
"Workers of the world unite! The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. (Tip of the hat to Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto.) Throw off the chains of government union oppression and breathe the air of free men. Reject the incompetent government schools who take your children and mis-educate them. I've got your back, and I will ask Congress to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, and to stop subsidizing local schools.
"Parents, you are hereby liberated from the shackles of state control of your family. You may now educate your children in the way that will most benefit them, not by our 'one size fits all' method. Justice and Peace are now yours."
But I say: Mr. President, have pity on the working man. You know, the productive class, the taxpayers, the ones who pay those hundred thousand dollar teacher's salaries. The real working man.
But there will be no pity from the president. Mr. Obama pretends that he is on the side of the working man against the evil forces that oppress the noble laborer. But he is on the wrong side of history here. It will eventually be acknowledged that it is the unions who are at war with the productive citizens. Meanwhile, as Randy Newman sang, "Mr. President, have pity on the working man!"
My, how things have changed. These striking teachers are not the poor "working man" of Randy Newman's song, who tries to elicit pity and help from an aloof president.
We've taken all you've given,
But it's gettin' hard to make a livin'.
Mr. President have pity on the working man.
We ain’t asking you to love us.
You may place yourself high above us.
Mr. President have pity on the working man.
Unions once pretended to represent the working man when most unions were in the private sector. Now that the public sector unions have ascended to power, they take from the working man to support themselves at a lofty station. The president won't admit it, but he has oppressed the real working man, by taking the sides of the parasites and the barbarians. Long live the government unions, where a government job doesn't mean actually working.
No Justice, No Piece (Of the Pie)
Ironies abound in Wisconsin union politics. Teachers there have twisted the urban street chant, "No justice, no peace", into a greed-fueled demand, oblivious of its true meaning. They don't want 'justice'; They want money, and to use government power to get it from the parents of the children they are employed to teach, most of whom make less money than the teachers do.
Maybe they could justify their pay if they were actually educating children. However, according to an article in townhall.com, the high school graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans is 34 percent. Only 32% of eighth-graders are proficient in reading, per the U.S. Dept. of Education. As Dire Straits sang in Money For Nothing, "That ain't workin'."
Maybe the children and parents who are subject to such sub-standard performance by their teachers should be out there on the street yelling about, "No education, no peace."
To Mr. Obama and the teachers, 'justice' means that the state must give in to the union demands for more money and benefits. So, collecting more from the working man is the only path to peace. That sounds more like extortion than justice. Since the teachers unions made their demand for justice while illegally playing hooky from their posts at school, then maybe they should feel the sting of actual justice, and should be fired. Maybe they would learn the correct meaning of the term. When this is over, how will teachers ever have credibility in the eyes of parents and children to teach a moral world view?
When Jesse Jackson shows up at a protest, cameras following of course, and the cries of "No Justice, No Peace" begin to ring out in the street, the evil overlords are supposed to give way to the demands of the downtrodden union mooks.
It wasn't supposed to happen the way it did so far. The protesters were not supposed to be exposed as the overlords, and the taxpayers were not supposed to create a ruckus. They should pay. The state always makes them pay, so why shouldn't they pay this time, too?
The Worm Has Turned.
This Wisconsin incident has confounded the usual analysis about who are the good guys and the bad guys. The teachers and President Obama have used the usual class-warfare rhetoric of the socialist left to fool the lumpenproletariat. But it hasn't worked this time, perhaps because the teacher's exalted financial station has been exposed as much better than that of the guy watching the protest on TV. Can a teacher earning a hundred grand a year really be a victim of injustice?
The teachers have nonetheless attempted to portray themselves as victims, while the reality of their over-abundance has been revealed. This typically did not happen when the state controlled the flow of information, but the stubborn facts are now disclosed rather quickly to the watching public. The teachers are revealed to be out only for themselves, rather than "for the children", as that famous Clintonian justification goes. It worked for him.
Maybe none of the time-tested script will work this time. Maybe the government "haves" have finally overplayed their hand at the expense of the "working man" in a time of widespread economic trouble. Maybe the slogans will not inspire the poor and middle class to proffer yet more of their incomes to the government class. Maybe the cry, "It's for the children" won't be as effective a means to guilt manipulation as it was in the hands of the master manipulator himself, Bill Clinton.
Maybe this trend will even spread to other states, and public servants earning a hundred thousand dollars plus per year will not be able to continue to intimidate the working man who must support them on only a fraction of that salary. Maybe the worm has turned.
If Obama Really Had Pity on the Working Man
Mr. Obama, when are you going to get on the side of the real working man? You must snub the union in favor of taxpayers, but that is not nearly enough. To really affirm justice and peace, you must side with families over the state, and get the government out of the education business entirely. Then the fight over stealing from the working man would cease. It is only a conflict because of the decision to take education out of the home and put it in the hands of the state. It there was no giant pile of tax money to fight over, then there would be no fight in the street right now.
Here is the right message for Mr. Obama to deliver to the long-suffering citizens of Wisconsin if he has any pity for the working man. It would insure his re-election in 2012:
"Workers of the world unite! The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. (Tip of the hat to Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto.) Throw off the chains of government union oppression and breathe the air of free men. Reject the incompetent government schools who take your children and mis-educate them. I've got your back, and I will ask Congress to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, and to stop subsidizing local schools.
"Parents, you are hereby liberated from the shackles of state control of your family. You may now educate your children in the way that will most benefit them, not by our 'one size fits all' method. Justice and Peace are now yours."
Saturday, January 29, 2011
How LOW Can The High Court GO? - Judges Can Now Legally Do The LImbo With Insider Lawyers
When doing the Limbo, they ask, "How LOW can you GO"? I think we just found out.
I always feel a pang of outrage when I see the picture feature every week on the back page of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly newspaper, depicting judges and insider lawyers partying and hanging all over each other, drinks in hand. How can these judges remain objective when they are drinking - and surely discussing cases with - favored insider big-firm lawyers? Of course, they cannot. In fact, it violates both the judicial canons of ethics and the lawyer ethics rules.
But never mind. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, whose judges also routinely engage in such fraternization, have given all the judges a pass. Judges and lawyers can now party hearty, without fear of transgressing any of the ethical rules. Well, it still violates them of course, but they will now pretend that it does not. Here is an excerpt from a Lawyer's Weekly article:
Here is a typical Boston Bar Association party with the lawyers and judges having fun:
Since the high court now approves bench and bar Bacchanalia, will some judges with a conscience still maintain their integrity and avoid such events? Will some judges realize that attendance at this type of affair grossly compromises their integrity and makes a serious appearance of impropriety?
It will be interesting to see which judges maintain an appropriate distance from such events, and which ones will be doing the Macarena or the Raisin Dance at some bar association party. Or maybe the Limbo: "How low can you go....."?
You can read the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion here: http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/cje/2011-1n.html
I always feel a pang of outrage when I see the picture feature every week on the back page of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly newspaper, depicting judges and insider lawyers partying and hanging all over each other, drinks in hand. How can these judges remain objective when they are drinking - and surely discussing cases with - favored insider big-firm lawyers? Of course, they cannot. In fact, it violates both the judicial canons of ethics and the lawyer ethics rules.
But never mind. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, whose judges also routinely engage in such fraternization, have given all the judges a pass. Judges and lawyers can now party hearty, without fear of transgressing any of the ethical rules. Well, it still violates them of course, but they will now pretend that it does not. Here is an excerpt from a Lawyer's Weekly article:
Opinion: OK for judges to party at bar events
Published: 12:53 pm Thu, January 27, 2011
Event organizers and party planners are breathing a sigh of relief these days.
In a surprise move that should spice up guest lists around town, the Supreme Judicial Court has issued a Code of Judicial Ethics opinion declaring that judges can attend bar association functions, including educational conferences, receptions and even gala balls free from worry that doing so will violate their ethical obligations.
In a five-page opinion, the court describes an anonymous judge’s dilemma over whether it’s proper to accept an invitation to serve as moderator of a bench-bar panel at an unnamed bar association event — a gathering that sounds suspiciously like the Massachusetts Bar Association’s centennial conference, a two-day celebration in May marking the organization’s 100th anniversary.
The event in question features a bench-bar panel and the award of a scholarship to a needy law school student. Tickets are priced at around $150, and the program is supported by a broad array of sponsors, including law firms, law schools and “many entities similar to those that typically advertise in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,” the court writes. Boston attorney Douglas K. Sheff, vice president of the MBA and co-chair of the conference, says he can’t confirm whether the opinion arose from the batch of invitations handed out for the upcoming celebration.
“It looks like our function,” he says, “but it’s broad enough to apply to anyone else.”
Sheff calls the opinion “a great thing” for everyone in the legal community because it clears up what has long been a source of confusion for judges and frustration for bar associations, and it expands the kinds of activities judges can now participate in without having to think twice.
Yep, it's a "great thing" to party with a judge if you are a lawyer. As the old saying goes, there are lawyers who know the law and lawyers who know the judge. Guess which type wins more often? I rather envy those who are not constrained by the obvious ethical problem here. The so-called lawyer "ethics" rules have not had very much to do with ethics for a long time. They now appear to be little more than a pretextual means to do away with those who may not find favor with insiders for other reasons.
Here is a typical Boston Bar Association party with the lawyers and judges having fun:
When they say "bench-bar" panel, I'm sure they mean something more like OPEN-bar panel.
It will be interesting to see which judges maintain an appropriate distance from such events, and which ones will be doing the Macarena or the Raisin Dance at some bar association party. Or maybe the Limbo: "How low can you go....."?
You can read the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion here: http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/cje/2011-1n.html
Monday, January 3, 2011
Shoveling is For Thee, Not For Me.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has made a new rule that we have to shovel our side-walks or be liable for falls. Until now, a property owner was only liable if someone slipped on an "un-natural" accumulation of ice or snow, rather than on ice or snow as distributed naturally from the heavens. In other words, if the property owner caused a hazard by moving snow around and someone slipped on it, he was liable. But he was not responsible for snow or ice that occurred naturally.
The Boston Herald found, however, in this article, that three of the seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court don't shovel their own walks. That's only for the little people, of course. One of the Justices judge gave this excuse:
“We plowed, we put down salt. We’re doing the best we can,” said Cowin. “I was trying to take some time off this week.”
Yeah, that would work in her court. I'm sure she would excuse a property owner from any liability, in a lawsuit filed by a person slipped on the ice. "Hey, I was busy trying to get some R & R."
The other part of this decision that flies in the face of our legal system is that only the legislature can pass laws, not the Supreme Judicial Court. It continues its tradition of illegally taking power which is not permitted to it by our State Declaration of Rights, which asserts, "The Judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers."
That statement seems simple enough that even a judge could understand it!
The Boston Herald found, however, in this article, that three of the seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court don't shovel their own walks. That's only for the little people, of course. One of the Justices judge gave this excuse:
“We plowed, we put down salt. We’re doing the best we can,” said Cowin. “I was trying to take some time off this week.”
Yeah, that would work in her court. I'm sure she would excuse a property owner from any liability, in a lawsuit filed by a person slipped on the ice. "Hey, I was busy trying to get some R & R."
The other part of this decision that flies in the face of our legal system is that only the legislature can pass laws, not the Supreme Judicial Court. It continues its tradition of illegally taking power which is not permitted to it by our State Declaration of Rights, which asserts, "The Judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers."
That statement seems simple enough that even a judge could understand it!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Judges Have An Unstated Agenda
The most transcendent, mist-enshrouded, bedrock first-principle that guides judges in their work is: "Be objective. Have no bias." Most judges seem to ascribe to this maxim, and believe that they bring objectivity to their work.
In reality, the law itself is not objective nor are the judges. The price which we have paid for straying so far from the legal ideal has become intolerable to a large and ever-growing pool of Americans. These are the citizens who have been partially or even utterly ruined by the judicial system, or have had their property or families taken away by it. It is not a light matter when judges have the power to intrude that deeply into lives, and often on the most flimsy and unreliable of evidence. It is then that the bias and the agenda of the law are at their most flagrant and visibly destructive.
After appearing before maybe one hundred state and federal judges over nearly twenty years, I believe that few judges operate without either a known or unknown bias. In areas of the law where discretion is the largest part of the judge's work, such as family and juvenile law, the biases interfere with justice on a widespread scale. Most persons who get entangled in the system, whether intentionally, thinking that justice will be done, or unintentionally, because the system drags them in, find out to their horror that the system is a disaster for everyone who touches it.
Virtually every person who enters a family or juvenile courtroom - whether voluntarily or involuntarily - exits that same court room later with the firm conviction that the system is grossly unfair, and that the judge operates with at least a tacit, if not a downright clear agenda or bias. Why are litigants across every demographic category, gender, social station and educational level, so universally convinced that the system is utterly ruined? Because, for the most part, it is true.
Lesson of the Lord High Chancellor
Charles Dickens put the most trenchant comment about these equity-based courts ever uttered into the mouth of a character in his 1852 serialized novel, Bleak House. As only Dickens can, he mercilessly skewers the pompous be-robed and be-wigged Lord High Chancellor sitting on his bench in the British Court of Chancery, and then offers this advice to potential litigants: "Suffer any wrong to be done to you, rather than go there."
Nearly every litigant whom I have personally represented, or observed in my sojourns into court, would echo that sentiment. Nor is it a new belief, as illustrated by Dickens' comment of over 150 years ago. In fact, Jesus also said, "Settle with your opponents on the way to court", because the system will crush and ruin you. Rather, this is a universally understood sentiment, reflecting a systematic, long-term failure of the judicial departments of every legal system. Yet, not one time or in one place, has the system done anything meaningful to remedy the dreadful deficiencies that are so painfully obvious to all those who have been exposed to then since time immemorial.
What is happening here? Why do courts persist in their same stubborn path, despite widespread recognition that they have failed to serve their constituents? And, most important, what can be done?
I grit my teeth every year as our own "Lord High Chancellor", the head of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (pronounced "Cawt" here in Massachusetts) gives her annual address and report on the judiciary to the assembled grandees in the Massachusetts State Legislature. To hear these fairy tales, one would think that justice is always being done for the lumpen masses, that judges are all noble, good. wise and true, that clerks are helpful, and are being overworked to the point of exhaustion (for that nice six-figure salary), and that the only problem is just not enough money to extend these benefits with even more efficiency.
The lesson of the Lord High Chancellor hasn't gone too far. One ought to suffer any wrong to be done to him or her rather than go to our hallowed halls of justice, either, but no one will admit it. All is well. Just give us more money, and it will be even better!
This blog post cannot become a lengthy historical treatise, explicating the historical developments which landed us in the present continuation of a long-term court crisis. Rather, this post will explain my conclusions and recommendations from long years of courtroom observation, from reading thousands of pages of judges' opinions, and from living through the cases in real time, which involve real people with real problems. That will likely be more useful than some dry historical treatise. We know what we have and how we got there. The real need is to get away from the status quo to something better.
Political Agenda in the Family Court
Judges in family and juvenile courts have the most opportunity to exercise bias and discretion, because they are so-called "courts of equity", like that of the Lord High Chancellor". That means that they operate with few rules, and give the judges substantial discretion to do what they think is fair. There are no juries in these courts, and many juvenile courts are even closed to the press and public. With fewer rules, discretion and wisdom must take the place of rote imposition of legal remedies. That presents an opportunity for bias and hidden agendas to become the premier factor in guiding judicial decisions.
Fifty years ago, men were favored in family courts, and women were treated shamefully, as though they were not equal. Now, the pendulum has swung grossly the other way, and women are favored as against men, and the state is favored over both, when it comes to children. Domestic abuse restraining orders are now given out freely, without adequate due process, to break up with boyfriends, as first strikes in a divorce, or even as a cheap eviction procedure. Women get the kids most of the time, along with child support and alimony, and fighting for shared parenting puts a man into pariah status.
In the child protective services area, single women with children are most commonly preyed upon by these agencies, the men are ignored altogether, and the kids are routinely kidnapped from fit parents with hardly a reasonable basis to do so.
My shorthand formula for the unstated court bias in these matters, admittedly a reductio ad absurdam, goes like this:
In reality, the law itself is not objective nor are the judges. The price which we have paid for straying so far from the legal ideal has become intolerable to a large and ever-growing pool of Americans. These are the citizens who have been partially or even utterly ruined by the judicial system, or have had their property or families taken away by it. It is not a light matter when judges have the power to intrude that deeply into lives, and often on the most flimsy and unreliable of evidence. It is then that the bias and the agenda of the law are at their most flagrant and visibly destructive.
After appearing before maybe one hundred state and federal judges over nearly twenty years, I believe that few judges operate without either a known or unknown bias. In areas of the law where discretion is the largest part of the judge's work, such as family and juvenile law, the biases interfere with justice on a widespread scale. Most persons who get entangled in the system, whether intentionally, thinking that justice will be done, or unintentionally, because the system drags them in, find out to their horror that the system is a disaster for everyone who touches it.
Virtually every person who enters a family or juvenile courtroom - whether voluntarily or involuntarily - exits that same court room later with the firm conviction that the system is grossly unfair, and that the judge operates with at least a tacit, if not a downright clear agenda or bias. Why are litigants across every demographic category, gender, social station and educational level, so universally convinced that the system is utterly ruined? Because, for the most part, it is true.
Lesson of the Lord High Chancellor
Charles Dickens put the most trenchant comment about these equity-based courts ever uttered into the mouth of a character in his 1852 serialized novel, Bleak House. As only Dickens can, he mercilessly skewers the pompous be-robed and be-wigged Lord High Chancellor sitting on his bench in the British Court of Chancery, and then offers this advice to potential litigants: "Suffer any wrong to be done to you, rather than go there."
 |
| The be-wigged Lord High Chancellor Campbell (1779-1861), sporting court dress (Harumph) |
What is happening here? Why do courts persist in their same stubborn path, despite widespread recognition that they have failed to serve their constituents? And, most important, what can be done?
I grit my teeth every year as our own "Lord High Chancellor", the head of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (pronounced "Cawt" here in Massachusetts) gives her annual address and report on the judiciary to the assembled grandees in the Massachusetts State Legislature. To hear these fairy tales, one would think that justice is always being done for the lumpen masses, that judges are all noble, good. wise and true, that clerks are helpful, and are being overworked to the point of exhaustion (for that nice six-figure salary), and that the only problem is just not enough money to extend these benefits with even more efficiency.
The lesson of the Lord High Chancellor hasn't gone too far. One ought to suffer any wrong to be done to him or her rather than go to our hallowed halls of justice, either, but no one will admit it. All is well. Just give us more money, and it will be even better!
This blog post cannot become a lengthy historical treatise, explicating the historical developments which landed us in the present continuation of a long-term court crisis. Rather, this post will explain my conclusions and recommendations from long years of courtroom observation, from reading thousands of pages of judges' opinions, and from living through the cases in real time, which involve real people with real problems. That will likely be more useful than some dry historical treatise. We know what we have and how we got there. The real need is to get away from the status quo to something better.
Political Agenda in the Family Court
Judges in family and juvenile courts have the most opportunity to exercise bias and discretion, because they are so-called "courts of equity", like that of the Lord High Chancellor". That means that they operate with few rules, and give the judges substantial discretion to do what they think is fair. There are no juries in these courts, and many juvenile courts are even closed to the press and public. With fewer rules, discretion and wisdom must take the place of rote imposition of legal remedies. That presents an opportunity for bias and hidden agendas to become the premier factor in guiding judicial decisions.
Fifty years ago, men were favored in family courts, and women were treated shamefully, as though they were not equal. Now, the pendulum has swung grossly the other way, and women are favored as against men, and the state is favored over both, when it comes to children. Domestic abuse restraining orders are now given out freely, without adequate due process, to break up with boyfriends, as first strikes in a divorce, or even as a cheap eviction procedure. Women get the kids most of the time, along with child support and alimony, and fighting for shared parenting puts a man into pariah status.
In the child protective services area, single women with children are most commonly preyed upon by these agencies, the men are ignored altogether, and the kids are routinely kidnapped from fit parents with hardly a reasonable basis to do so.
My shorthand formula for the unstated court bias in these matters, admittedly a reductio ad absurdam, goes like this:
Men are evil abusers;
Women are victims;
Children belong to the state.
The outcome of most matters in family and juvenile court can be predicted using that formula. Courts have always had a "default" setting which pre-disposes them to enhance state power, or to favor the litigant which most identifies with state power.
The New Fourth Branch of Government
Today, the government has expanded into so many areas which are either explicitly forbidden by our federal and state constitutions (e.g. regulation of campaign finance or of gun ownership), or which are not enumerated in a strictly limited list of powers permitted to the government. (e.g. toilet water limits or rutabaga regulations).
Because of this massive accretion of power, government has made virtually every interaction between humans, or humans and any other animal, vegetable or mineral, a matter of crushing over-arching regulation and legal jeopardy.
One of the most significant ways that government has done this, is to create a semi-autonomous fourth branch of government on the federal, state, and local levels, which is a hybrid of the three functions which we have traditionally separated under our constitutional system: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. This fourth branch is the Regulation State. It contains its own legislative function by making up regulations without approval of Congress or state legislatures except in broad terms. It contains its own executive function, through its "swarms of officers", to use Jefferson's term. And, it has a court system, which appears to be real, including people in robes, when they are not appointed under Article III of our constitution or their state cognates.
For example, in the environment area, states and the feds have environmental agencies (i.e. the Environmental Protection Agency) which write wetland laws, and which administer those laws that they write, and then enforce them if landholders do not comply. They have local and state tribunals like Conservation Commissions, and Departments of Environmental Protection, which issue orders to not use land in accord with their rules. Non-compliance results in huge fines or land confiscation. Continued non-compliance lands you - at last - in court. But, here is the rub. Judicial review of Fourth Branch proceedings only looks at whether the agency was "rational" in what it did, or whether it obeyed its own unconstitutional regulations, not whether what they did was lawful, fair, constitutional, or with due process. Guess who almost always wins?
The New Crimes
A second major trend is that most laws passed in the last forty years are crimes against the state, not against persons or property, as our laws used to be. Lawmakers have, in their drafting, bypassed almost all of our traditional notions of fairness and due process, and replaced them with low standards of proof, one-sided hearings, non-judicial tribunals, non-availability of juries, and limited judicial review. The current crop of laws would have been ruled entirely out of line in days past, since they changed every premise on which our system was originally premised.
Topping it off is a thick veneer of official "immunity" for government employees, which is legalese for not being accountable for most of the depredations which these people commit in the name of the government, as long as they are "discretionary", and within their illicitly obtained jurisdiction.
Sovereign Immunity was a doctrine which protected the King of England from legal process. The king could do not wrong, so you could not sue him. That legal doctrine, which now protects government employees from their wrongdoing, may be the most destructive thing we have ever imported from a foreign land.
There Is No Right Or Wrong, Just Arguments
One of the first things that fresh-faced, earnest law students learn in law school is that the system does not believe in right or wrong, only in arguments. Whose argument is best. "Right" and "wrong" are concepts for moralists, not jurists. The law changes with the needs of the people, and shifts with the times. This collections of relativistic principles is called "legal realism", and became part of our system through figures such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes.
Another permutation of anchor-less law is called "legal positivism", where law can be binding on courts, rather than merely drifting with the whim of the judge. However, that law is usually created out of the fevered minds of do-gooders, who enact layer upon layer of arbitrary regulations, based primarily on a philosophy which believes that only government can bring about good behavior in the lumpen masses. Have a problem, pass a law, is their credo.
Both of these philosophies have combined to destroy a legal system which could have evolved to become better, not worse, had it not fallen into the hands of the relativists or statists.
Topping it off is a thick veneer of official "immunity" for government employees, which is legalese for not being accountable for most of the depredations which these people commit in the name of the government, as long as they are "discretionary", and within their illicitly obtained jurisdiction.
Sovereign Immunity was a doctrine which protected the King of England from legal process. The king could do not wrong, so you could not sue him. That legal doctrine, which now protects government employees from their wrongdoing, may be the most destructive thing we have ever imported from a foreign land.
There Is No Right Or Wrong, Just Arguments
One of the first things that fresh-faced, earnest law students learn in law school is that the system does not believe in right or wrong, only in arguments. Whose argument is best. "Right" and "wrong" are concepts for moralists, not jurists. The law changes with the needs of the people, and shifts with the times. This collections of relativistic principles is called "legal realism", and became part of our system through figures such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes.
Another permutation of anchor-less law is called "legal positivism", where law can be binding on courts, rather than merely drifting with the whim of the judge. However, that law is usually created out of the fevered minds of do-gooders, who enact layer upon layer of arbitrary regulations, based primarily on a philosophy which believes that only government can bring about good behavior in the lumpen masses. Have a problem, pass a law, is their credo.
Both of these philosophies have combined to destroy a legal system which could have evolved to become better, not worse, had it not fallen into the hands of the relativists or statists.
They Really Do Have Principles - Just the Wrong Ones - And They Won't Admit It.
The legal elite who declaim the existence of universal natural law principles, still have quite a quiver-full of their own inviolable presumptions. The difference is, they will not admit that they all share an unstated but iron-clad agenda. Variance from this agenda - which I will set out below - is a basis for expulsion from the inner circle, and it is rarely done.
While stating that there are no absolutes, the elite cling to these absolutes nonetheless, and will never concede an inch of ground in their defense. Also, they will almost never mention them. They are like the secret Masonic rituals cannot be known by non-Masons, but are binding upon their members.
What are these non-negotiable principles, hidden in plain site, which the elite cling to? Here is my list. See if your experience verifies that they must necessary exist, even if they cannot be seen, just like chemists can predict that an unknown element must be there, because of a hole in the periodic table. They are simple, just like the periodic table, and appear to be almost as certain as those elements in the table.
1. The state is god. The statist revolution to save mankind from itself must triumph at all costs, even if it destroys most of mankind in the process. See Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler.
2. Feminism is catechism. Men are evil, women are victims, the children belong to the state.
3. Abortion is the high, holy sacrament. Don't touch it, ever.
4. Government agents are priests. Let them operate unimpeded.
5. Dependency on government must be widespread. Only then will freedom be undermined.
6. Resistance is futile. Our agencies and courts will ensure it.
7. Wealth is evil. Fairness demands it be equalized.
8. War is the health of the state. Empire is inevitable.
The legal elite who declaim the existence of universal natural law principles, still have quite a quiver-full of their own inviolable presumptions. The difference is, they will not admit that they all share an unstated but iron-clad agenda. Variance from this agenda - which I will set out below - is a basis for expulsion from the inner circle, and it is rarely done.
While stating that there are no absolutes, the elite cling to these absolutes nonetheless, and will never concede an inch of ground in their defense. Also, they will almost never mention them. They are like the secret Masonic rituals cannot be known by non-Masons, but are binding upon their members.
What are these non-negotiable principles, hidden in plain site, which the elite cling to? Here is my list. See if your experience verifies that they must necessary exist, even if they cannot be seen, just like chemists can predict that an unknown element must be there, because of a hole in the periodic table. They are simple, just like the periodic table, and appear to be almost as certain as those elements in the table.
1. The state is god. The statist revolution to save mankind from itself must triumph at all costs, even if it destroys most of mankind in the process. See Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler.
2. Feminism is catechism. Men are evil, women are victims, the children belong to the state.
3. Abortion is the high, holy sacrament. Don't touch it, ever.
4. Government agents are priests. Let them operate unimpeded.
5. Dependency on government must be widespread. Only then will freedom be undermined.
6. Resistance is futile. Our agencies and courts will ensure it.
7. Wealth is evil. Fairness demands it be equalized.
8. War is the health of the state. Empire is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)