Additional Pages

Friday, January 28, 2011

The Insanity of Nine Kings and Queens

I am incapable of seeing anything other than a consortium of kings and queens when I look at the Supreme Court. Despite their objections, they act as often irrationally and insanely as they do rationally. One good ruling that seems to represent the Constitution is obliterated by another that is pulled out of thin air or over-reliant on the vaguest clauses.

The Constitution was not vague, it was specific. Those few instances where generalities were employed have been given undue weight and importance to give legitimacy to the congress and gravitas to the president. Since the Supreme Court is the last stop in the legal process it is given the power of all forms of government combined. Being insensitive to the electorate, they operate impervious to the voices of the people whose lives they affect with their random rulings.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there an establishment of Stare Decisis, that is an invention of the courts themselves. Case law is useful in many ways, but to establish case law as a precedent to override a clear and common understanding of the English language is an abuse of power rectifiable only through nullification, or mass rebellion.

To better understand the insanity of these nine kings and queens, let us examine seat belt laws. I have never seen a legitimate argument for the imposition of a seat belt law. There is some mention of the state having a defined interest in the health and welfare of the individual and were seat belt laws uniformly and perfect in their solution to injury and death they might have a point, but where a seat belt can be the cause of death and injury even in a minority of cases, it is too vague to override an individual's personal judgment.

Also, where the court has ruled that a woman has a right to end the life of her child in order to honor her personal judgment about her health and welfare, it seems in direct conflict with the previous ruling on seat belts. The question comes down to whether an individual has the right to make decisions about their health and welfare, or not. In one case the court has ruled that it is so and in another ruling they have held that it is not.

This is only possible where clear definitions and intentions are abandoned in favor of government control and social engineering. Roe v. Wade is also insane when considering gun laws. In one instance a right unmentioned in the Constitution is discovered in the shadows of other rights where the whole body of intention is taken as gospel, but the clear and concise language of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow an all too vague and ill-defined clause to be faithfully upheld. It is clear from the whole Second Amendment that it is not the "well-regulated militia" that is the object of the action of the amendment, but the people's right to keep and bear arms is the object and the requirement of a "well-regulated militia" the means to "the security of a free state" the security being the responsibility of the people.

I ask you: how has the security of a free state ceased to be the responsibility of the people? The police act as the one thing all of the founders feared: a standing army at the behest of a government hostile to the liberty of the people.

You have the right to employ the 1x1x1 doctrine.

Graciously linked and quoted at Free North Carolina.
Graciously linked at Western Rifle Shooters Association.
Graciously linked at The American Patriot.


  1. Excellent analysis!

    You're far too logical for a Liberal to understand. This is the kind of writing that will make their heads explode.

    I love it!


  2. Hey, I just found the perfect cartoon.

  3. I'm a liberal and I understand this, although I believe analysing topics with potentially infinite variables can be very frustrating and stressful for oneself. In a society with millions or billions of people, solutions will most definitely bring more problems.

  4. Dear Dave -

    If I follow the implication of your statement " will most definitely bring more problems", in your world view man should either isolate himself or do nothing.

    Rather than pursue those dead-end actions, I encourage you to explore the thoughts of two of our founders:

    "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured."
    "Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual..."

    Thomas Paine

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

    Thomas Jefferson

    Only those persons who work to violate these principles will "bring more problems".

    Best Regards,
    Hans (NC)

  5. TL,

    That, sir, is possibly the most impressive (especially in its brevity) analysis of SCOTUS that I have ever read. I did not think the America of this era contained a man who could hold a candle to Thomas Paine, but you are making me revise that opinion.

  6. "I have never seen a legitimate argument for the imposition of a seat belt law." So. What does that have to do with whether it is Constitutional or not?

  7. Brian, I guess you would have to read and think, one of which you appear unable to do.

  8. This is my 30th year as a lawyer, married to the same woman for 33 years, four children, damn nice guy, etc., and I tell my clients that the clan you have to worry about isn't the one that wears white robes and hats; it's the one that wears black robes and that you call "judge", and "your honor", and that you meet at your daughter's volley ball game and come away impressed with what a nice guy, or girl, he or she is. So what? They don't get it; and that's why they are there. They believe their own bullshit just like the legislature, and law enforcement, and the military, and the wolves in the pulpits. It is also true that some of them really do get it, but not like you. They just plain hate you, your family, your friends, and your dog, and they are going to do whatever in the hell their sick, messianic vision of the world tells them to do.
    I have always told my family that if I am ever lined up alongside a ditch and shot because I'm a lawyer, I'm not going to like it, but I will understand; not because of anything I ever did, because I don't think any of my clients could ever say that I lied to them or sold them down the river, but because of what the legal profession, and in particular the judiciary, has done to this country.
    Stop wasting your time expecting a rational response from them. I read somewhere last week that the judiciary is like letting students grade their own papers. Now that makes sense. If you ever hear the words "reasonable" or "balancing test" coming out of their mouths, just "stand by for a ram" as the navy says. Or, since I'm a former U.S. Marine, "lock and load".
    Get it??

  9. Hans, you quoted and responded to only half of my sentence.

  10. Hi Dave -

    I focused on the part that matters.

    Whether society is comprised of two people or two billion people is irrelevant to a discussion of inherent and civil rights.


  11. "Brian, I guess you would have to read and think, one of which you appear unable to do."

    Thank you for the insult as a response. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

    Travel well sir.

  12. Well, the exact Constitutional issue was laid bare when I wrote: "The question comes down to whether an individual has the right to make decisions about their health and welfare, or not. In one case the court has ruled that it is so and in another ruling they have held that it is not."

    So either you were unable to read that, or you were unable to recognize it as the Constitutional issue at hand.

  13. "but to establish case law as a precedent to override a clear and common understanding of the English language is an abuse of power rectifiable only through nullification, or mass rebellion."

    I would like to add IMPEACHMENT for failure to Defend the COTUS by misinterpretation.

    One could Maybe misunderstand "a well Regulated Militia" part of the 2ND (if one is a DUMBASS)but it becomes clearer in "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    Now that we have that all cleared up.....


    and they can wear a seat belt around their Necks if they want seat belts.

  14. I'm afraid I must disagree - seat belt laws *WHEN IMPLEMENTED BY A STATE* - are perfectly Constitutional. Further, I'm of the opinion (shared by our Founders BTW) that The Constitution limits only the Federal Government, and that the States may largely do as they please. There are very few and very specific limitations on the states within the Constitution, and all else is (per the 10th Amendment) reserved to them.

    That said, I think seat-belt laws are detrimental to our society, and to our species at large. Further, child-seat laws are as well.

    If stupid people wish to remove themselves from the gene-pool through refusal to wear a seat-belt, I'm all in favor of letting them do so. Further, if they wish to likewise remove their progeny through negligence then more power to them!

    The (FALSE!) argument for seat belt, helmet, and other "nanny-state" laws usually amounts to "when you vegetize yourself, We The People are stuck footing the bill to feed/house/diaper you." The falseness of this argument should be obvious -- for I cannot see the basis for this presumed "societal obligation."

    *IF* anyone has an obligation to provide for such an idiot, it would be his/her family -- who are (not coincidentally) also in the best position to influence the behavior of the prospective vegetable.

    Call me "cold-hearted", but personally I believe that anyone brain-damaged due to failure to wear a helmet should be allowed to expire, in deference to their obvious death-wish. Likewise those who refuse to wear a seat-belt or commit other moronic acts of self-destruction.

    Forcing the stupid - against their will - to remain the gene-pool does none of us any good.


  15. D.D. excuse me but, didn't the Feds threaten the states with deigning federal hwy funds if they did not impose seat belt laws? Federal Blackmail.

    And don't the feds use Regulatory Agencies to enact laws that can't make it through Congress and or The Senate, Cap & Trade(EPA), Internet Shut Down(FCC) and the list goes on.


    BTW seat belts don't always save lives(as in when a road follows along a water-way) and I have TWO Friends that Lost Their Lives With Helmets ON one of which Broke his Neck because of the helmet.

  16. Dennis...You are correct, and if the House of Reps would cut off the federal money trail then the feds would have no way to blackmail and extort to get the outcome they want. They could not mandate squat without the ability to "buy" the outcome. No fed gas tax equals no bridges to nowhere or commuter rail to nowhere. It would kill the education "programs" But we need the House to cut off the funding for all this BS. Let the government wither on the vine.

  17. TL,

    I read DD's post, and it sounds like he understands the difference between saying seat belts are bad and saying the seat belt _law_ is bad. I am at a loss to see why his post should upset anyone. Unless the post I am reading (Jan 29 @ 9:36 PM) is different from the one you are referring to.

    I was an EMT/Ambulance in San Diego for five years and many traffic accidents. I was a San Diego police officer for two years, followed by working for the California Highway Patrol for over ten years. Seat belts do save lives, but you have to ask yourself this: why do so many knife companies, tactical equipment stores, and EMT equipment stores sell gear or knives to cut seat belts? Because it is a _frequent_ occurrence that you can't get the damned things off. Having worked for CHP at the north end of the state, I too have seen many vehicles in the rivers of the area, and personally know of deaths caused by the victim's inability to get their belt off in time.

    That being said, the REAL issue is that the government has no right, no actual authority, to tell us how to conduct the business of every day life. It sounds as if DD spoke to the idea that it isn’t unConstitutional for the state to so legislate, as opposed to the Federal government. I am ashamed to say I am not scholar enough to answer that, but it appears sound on the face of the argument.

    Personally, I don’t want the state I live in to tell me what is safe for me to do and what isn’t. I realize we all would like to protect our children until they become old enough (hopefully) to start taking consequences into account when they take - or don’t take - action. It would be nice to be able to protect small children from the ignorance, stupidity, or negligence of their parents. Sometimes the spawn of fools will go on to become decent, even exceptional human beings.

    Legislating “safety” , like legislating “morality”, is fraught with peril. Good intentions aren’t sufficient to keep the legislators from stealing liberty in exchange for some foolish notion of safety. If legislators think that people cannot be trusted to make the right choices, then obviously that applied when these legislators were chosen, elected, to represent those people. Said legislators should therefore resign and go back to chasing ambulances or selling used cars.

  18. Exactly my point, Reg. Look, my kids all wear seat belts and were in car seats before that. The state does have a right to protect the children of society moreso than the adults. Now that my kids are old enough to decide for themselves about seat belts, I don't try and change their minds, they wear them and I am happy that they do.
    The crux of the issue is simply that it is a decision offered to women to even kill their unborn children to protect their "right to choose" but that right disappears when I get into a car. It doesn't make logical sense is what I was saying, that's all.
    The fact that I hate the law is an outgrowth of my personal understanding that there are times and situations when I would choose not to wear it and while I do whatever I damn well please, I should not be concerned about retribution from the state for it. The insurance company has a stake in my health and a reasonable expectation that I will do whatever it takes to benefit my health and a right to know whether I am placing their assets at greater risk, or not, but they have not asked, all they have done is support the legislature to remove that option, so to hell with them too.

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Nice Info! This is nice informative blog in which you shared the topic The Insanity of Nine Kings and Queens which is very interesting topic thanks for sharing keep sharing this type of blog.

    Junk Car Cash in Queens | Cash for Junk Cars in Brooklyn

  22. This is nice informative blog. An idea of selling your accidental car at best junk car dealers.

    Cash for Junk Cars in Queens | Junk Car for Money in Bronx in NY


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.