The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Bigun on July 05, 2019, 02:00:27 pm
-
From the redcoats to the black robes
Daniel Horowitz · July 3, 2019
King George couldn’t hold a candle to the judicial despotism we are governed by some 12 score and three years after the colonists rebelled against what they thought were “intolerable acts.†Sure, there was some taxation without representation going on in the 1770s, but I think the colonists would have taken that any day if they were to see in their crystal ball the severity of today’s social transformation without representation.
We celebrate so much more than the founding of a new nation on July 4. After all, the day the Continental Congress actually declared independence was July 2. What we celebrate on Independence Day is the philosophy of self-governance that the Founders adopted in our Declaration of Independence, for without self-governance, what would have been the point of declaring independence from one king, only to condemn themselves to despotism under their “own†rulers?
Packed into the 201 words of the preamble of the document crafted by Thomas Jefferson with the help of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman were six foundational principles on the morality of a just governing system.
*That individuals are born with natural rights that come from God, not a human institution.
*That chief among those natural rights given by God are life, liberty, and pursuitof happiness. Implicit in this are the natural rights to self-defense, to make a living, and to own property. As Sam Adams, the Founding Father of the American revolution, said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.â€
*That individuals form a government as a social compact to protect those inalienable rights from threats.
*That on issues not affecting inalienable rights, government may exercise other just powers, primarily for the safety and stability of the society, but only by the consent of the people as expressed through a legitimate form of republican representation. Inherent in the principle of consent of the governed is that no outside forces not controlled by the members of that society itself may determine the destiny of the society.
*That all human beings are created equal in access to and defense of those inalienable rights, not in societal outcomes, privileges, or other human pursuits, an ideal that would run counter to natural law. Also, implicit in the preamble is that all members of a given society are equal in the right to self-governance.
*That when a long train of abuses and usurpations of these principles continues without any other recourse, the people have the right, indeed a duty, to rebel against the existing system.
Perhaps the most important principle established at the time was the right of the people who created the society to self-govern. As immortalized in the words of the Declaration itself, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.â€
The most important decision a society will ever make is whom they will accept as another member of that society, who in turn has a stake in determining the outcome of all the other major decisions.
This is why James Madison, in his 1835 essay on sovereignty, used the example of citizenship to explain how, in a republican society, decisions must flow with the consent of the people through their elected representatives. And there’s no greater decision for society than the future makeup of the society itself. Madison wrote, “In the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact … by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.â€
No foreigner or foreign entity can control the destiny of our nation and force upon us an outcome for citizenship, judicial standing, or any other benefit against the will of the president or Congress. It’s obvious that a country can never be forced to issue citizenship against its will, for if that were the case, it would cease to be a sovereign country “free from external control,†as the term is defined by Webster’s dictionary.
Yet here we are, fully one year into a crisis of one million aliens invading our border, all resulting from a single district judge, Dana Sabraw, erroneously ceded power by the other branches of government to throw out our immigration laws. Just last weekend, another district judge in California ruled that a president of the United States can’t even build a wall to keep some of them out.
Again, King George couldn’t hold a candle to the despotism we’ve allowed to flow from a few unelected California judges. This is worse than a constitutional violation. This is a violation of popular and territorial sovereignty, the most foundational principles established in the moral underpinning of the Declaration of Independence. Now, the judges are telling us that we can’t even conduct a census for the citizenry of this country and that, by default, hostile cartels can send millions of aliens into this country, force citizenship for their children upon us, and be counted in the census...
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/redcoats-black-robes/?fbclid=IwAR36AHQE1NsNKndpUCwNdMHEtBWZBPYRQ8AV4tkljmjhno2NVG5nm7y6a1w (https://www.conservativereview.com/news/redcoats-black-robes/?fbclid=IwAR36AHQE1NsNKndpUCwNdMHEtBWZBPYRQ8AV4tkljmjhno2NVG5nm7y6a1w)
-
Mr. Horowitz is 100% on target IMHO.
-
Who is he to question the Righteousness of A Federal Judge?
-
Who is he to question the Righteousness of A Federal Judge?
Not us rubes, if you ever listened to a Lawyer.
-
Not us rubes, if you ever listened to a Lawyer.
Are you a cardiologist?
If not, what value does your advice on the correct stitching technique for valve replacement have?
If you haven’t taken the time to learn about the law, it’s history and doctrines, then your opinions on the law are about as valueless as your opinions on open-heart surgical techniques.
-
You Will Respect My Authoritah! (https://image.vuukle.com/b7eda886-4d2c-40d2-94e8-3558adb2ee15-93a43fbb-a387-440c-b8b7-374fe80801ca)
-
You Will Respect My Authoritah! (https://image.vuukle.com/b7eda886-4d2c-40d2-94e8-3558adb2ee15-93a43fbb-a387-440c-b8b7-374fe80801ca)
Are you a cardiologist?
-
Are you a cardiologist?
If not, what value does your advice on the correct stitching technique for valve replacement have?
If you haven’t taken the time to learn about the law, it’s history and doctrines, then your opinions on the law are about as valueless as your opinions on open-heart surgical techniques.
Understanding a law should not be complex as open-heart surgery. Your conflation of the two is as specious as when you first proposed it long ago.
-
Are you a cardiologist?
No one need be a Cardiologist in order to read and interpret the plain language of the Constitution.
-
No one need be a Cardiologist in order to read and interpret the plain language of the Constitution.
Which is exactly why I think that analogy is specious, and why lawyers are such fans of complex interpretations and precedence. It secures their places as oracles rubes must use to function in the Justice System.
-
No one need be a Cardiologist in order to read and interpret the plain language of the Constitution.
One needs skills in law commensurate with the skills of the cardiologist to read the Constitution.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that all that’s needed is mastery of grade school reading classes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-
Which is exactly why I think that analogy is specious, and why lawyers are such fans of complex interpretations and precedence. It secures their places as oracles rubes must use to function in the Justice System.
Poster child for the saying “ you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.â€
You know nothing of the law, are quite proud of that fact, and yet think yourself a master of the law nonetheless.
-
One needs skills in law commensurate with the skills of the cardiologist to read the Constitution.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that all that’s needed is mastery of grade school reading classes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure they do! According to some members of the cult known as lawyers.
-
We have both permitted and encouraged arrogant judicial activism to erode those premises
articulated by Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, which were the bedrock of our ruling system.
Ironically, these wise Founders were both intuitive conservatives and rural southern democrats.
Across the globe nation/states that are governed by parliamentary systems have never elevated their judicial function to a co-equal branch of governance; instead assigning the direct
representatives of plain people eg. the House of Commons, the role of final authority as to what is intended/meant by the law.
It's way past High Time our Courts, Supreme and otherwise, who have a vastly exaggerated
sense of entitlement and worth, were permanently put in their place and acquainted
w/the precepts of Natural Law; the foundation for all governance since the earliest
Ancients commencing w/Sargon of Mesopotamia some 5,000 years ago.
-
Which is exactly why I think that analogy is specious, and why lawyers are such fans of complex interpretations and precedence. It secures their places as oracles rubes must use to function in the Justice System.
@Cyber Liberty
Please see: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367066.msg2001216.html#msg2001216 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367066.msg2001216.html#msg2001216)
-
Poster child for the saying “ you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.â€
You know nothing of the law, are quite proud of that fact, and yet think yourself a master of the law nonetheless.
Whatever you say.
-
Sure they do! According to some members of the cult known as lawyers.
Better be careful! He might call you a poster child for stupid people.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Please see: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367066.msg2001216.html#msg2001216 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,367066.msg2001216.html#msg2001216)
I like it! It would make more sense than the credentialism that runs the system as presently configured. But what do I know? I'm just a poster child for the stupid.
-
We have both permitted and encouraged arrogant judicial activism to erode those premises
articulated by Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, which were the bedrock of our ruling system.
Ironically, these wise Founders were both intuitive conservatives and rural southern democrats.
Across the globe nation/states that are governed by parliamentary systems have never elevated
their judicial function to a co-equal branch of governance; instead assigning the direct
representatives of plain people eg. the House of Commons, the role of final authority as to what
is intended/meant by the law.
It's way past High Time our arrogant Courts, Supreme and otherwise, were permanently put in
their place and acquainted w/the precepts of Natural Law; the foundation for all governance
since the earliest Ancients.
:amen: :beer:
-
I like it! It would make more sense than the credentialism that runs the system as presently configured. But what do I know? I'm just a poster child for the stupid.
In the opinion of exactly ONE poster here you mean. Most all the rest know better.
-
One needs skills in law commensurate with the skills of the cardiologist to read the Constitution.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that all that’s needed is mastery of grade school reading classes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
-
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
:thumbsup:
-
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Well said @HoustonSam! As is the norm for you.
-
"The judiciary...may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment..."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
-
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
You say what I think, only much better. Thanks! :beer:
-
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
---------------------------------
Reflective and on the mark.
It is amusing to hear such blather that a higher mind is required to interpret Law. Wow, who knew???
Such an absurdity brings to mind the Principle of Parsimony, articulated by Ockham, a
Franciscan Monk and Scholastic; also labeled, his 'Razor.'
In brief, he argued that logic requires the fewest assumptions to explain any fact of Nature.
The greatest minds in science adhered to this Principle, among them:
* Archimedes and his Law of Buoyancy.
* Newton and his Laws of Motion.
* Galileo and his Law of Inertia.
It was not until the modern era that this Principle was ignored; most prominently by:
* Darwin in his 'Origin of the Species' and
* Einstein and 'Relativity'.
And what is most striking about the latter two scientists?????
THEY POSTULATED THEORIES WHICH TO THIS VERY MOMENT REMAIN
UNPROVEN DESPITE HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF ARGUMENT.
SO MUCH FOR PARSIMONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the Law, what we need is humility, not arrogant bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
Yeah, right. You wear your ignorance so proudly.
-
Yeah, right. You wear your ignorance so proudly.
Just as you wear your totalitarian bent.
-
Yeah, right. You wear your ignorance so proudly.
If I am wrong then at least one of the following is untrue :
Government requires consent of the governed;
A law must be understood by those governed in order to have their consent;
The US Constitution is taught in the public schools;
Juries are drawn from voter rolls.
Which is untrue?
-
If I am wrong then at least one of the following is untrue :
Government requires consent of the governed;
A law must be understood by those governed in order to have their consent;
The US Constitution is taught in the public schools;
Juries are drawn from voter rolls.
Which is untrue?
@HoustonSam you cannot question @Bill Cipher as he is a member of the cult and thus FAR above you and me.
-
@HoustonSam you cannot question @Bill Cipher as he is a member of the cult and thus FAR above you and me.
This would explain the one-sentence posts like "You are stupid" or "whatever" in response to long, thought-out posts from others. He's an Oracle, and needs no further explanation. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Not a lawyer. Not a cardiologist. Not a rocket scientist.
I did complete the second grade.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the the people....
Not we the lawyers. Not we the cardiologists. Not we the rocket scientists.
From wikipedia:
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
So there. :tongue2:
-
Not a lawyer. Not a cardiologist. Not a rocket scientist.
I did complete the second grade.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the the people....
Not we the lawyers. Not we the cardiologists. Not we the rocket scientists.
From wikipedia:
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
So there. :tongue2:
goopo
Your quoting of the preamble does cast some light on how far we've strayed under the tender mercies of the Oracles, our "betters."
@bigheadfred
-
Are you a cardiologist?
If not, what value does your advice on the correct stitching technique for valve replacement have?
If you haven’t taken the time to learn about the law, it’s history and doctrines, then your opinions on the law are about as valueless as your opinions on open-heart surgical techniques.
That ain't how it works. a surgeon can be amazed by the talents of a simple leather worker.
And a lawyer can learn wisdom from a simple painter... Well theoretically anyway... Not that anyone has actually seen wisdom in a lawyer... :whistle:
-
One needs skills in law commensurate with the skills of the cardiologist to read the Constitution.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
O_M_G!!!!
Like 'you have to be a theologian to understand the Bible'!
What elitist crap!
:happyhappy: 88finger point :bigsilly:
-
You know nothing of the law, are quite proud of that fact, and yet think yourself a master of the law nonetheless.
@Bill Cipher
I think you know nothing of the law,or you would know that the law means whatever a judge wants it to mean. This is NOT "theory",bubba. It is established FACT.