(from Fox News)
The United States Supreme Court…
In win for Asian-American rock band the Slants, and possible boost for the Washington Redskins, Supreme Court rules that the government can’t refuse to register trademarks that are considered offensive.
More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-rules-trademark-law-banning-offensive-names-is-unconstitutional.html
AGAIN, free speech is not about that with which we agree!
(Just when you thought the Supreme Court was worthless…)
(Yes, yes. I know many think we have devolved into an oligarchy. I’m writing about what we are as a Nation, on PAPER!)
To Benjamin Franklin: “Well, Doctor, What have you given us, a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it!”
There are various other versions of this supposed quotation, the essence of which is WE (The United States) are a REPUBLIC!
Remember THIS from Grade School?
“…and to the Republic, for which it stands.”
Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Beverly Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles, CA – (Advance Release Text)
November 2, 1960 (excerpts):
We live in a fast moving nation. But one thing constant from the birth of our Republic has been our faith in education and our determination to make it available to all our citizens.
Thus the value and importance of education was at the foundation of Western thought – and was again present at the foundation of the American Republic.
Virtually EVERY President (Yes, even Barack Obama!) referred in some manner to the American Republic! (Don’t believe me, do your own searches!)
We are NOT, and NEVER HAVE BEEN, a democracy!
Then, why do all politicians, even conservative republicans (democrats are a given) make statements to the affect that thus-and-such yatta-yatta this democracy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
Peter, of The Bayou Renaissance Man, brings us this:
The inimitable Victor Davis Hanson sees many parallels between California today and the antebellum South.
In December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union in furor over the election of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote. He espoused values the state insisted did not reflect its own.
In eerie irony, liberal California is now mirror-imaging the arguments of reactionary South Carolina and other Southern states that vowed to go it alone in 1860 and 1861.
. . .
Of course, this is 2017, not 1860, and California is super-liberal, not an antebellum slave-owning society.
Nonetheless, what is driving California’s current efforts to nullify federal law and the state’s vows to secede from the U.S. are some deeper — and creepy — similarities to the arrogant and blinkered Old South.
. . .
California is becoming a reactionary two-tier state of masters and serfs whose culture is as peculiar and out of step with the rest of the country as was the antebellum South’s. The California elite, wishing to keep the natural environment unchanged, opposes internal improvements and sues to stop pipelines, aqueducts, reservoirs, freeways, and affordable housing for the coastal poor.
California’s crumbling roads and bridges sometimes resemble those of the old rural South. The state’s public schools remain among the nation’s poorest. Private academies are booming for the offspring of the coastal privileged, just as they did among the plantation class of the South.
California, for all its braggadocio, cannot leave the U.S. or continue its states’-rights violations of federal law. It will eventually see that the new president is not its sickness, nor are secession and nullification its cures.
Instead, California is becoming a reactionary two-tier state of masters and serfs whose culture is as peculiar and out of step with the rest of the country as was the antebellum South’s. No wonder the state lashes out at the rest of the nation with threatened updated versions of the Old Confederacy’s secession and nullification.
But such reactionary Confederate obstructionism is still quite an irony given California’s self-righteous liberal preening.
There’s much more at the link. Recommended reading.
I think Mr. Hanson is right. The current frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria in California over President Trump’s policies reminds me of George Wallace’s inaugural address as Governor of Alabama on January 14th, 1963.
- Insistence on doing things as Alabama wants them? Check.
- Refusal to kowtow to federal authority? Check.
- Warning Washington that the next President would be determined by voters who shared Wallace’s and Alabama’s views? Check.
Well, guess who won that fight? (Hint: see the outcome at Appomattox. Wash, rinse, repeat.)
California might want to think about that . . .
I’m torn on this issue. States should be free to separate from the Republic as they wish. Certainly California has been one of the leaders in thinking and acting different from the Constitutional Republic in which I was raised.
But, secession? Calexit?
It is interesting how in one week they ‘rattle their sabers’ for becoming a separate entity. Then beg for federal help when their infrastructure continues to crumble.
I’m thinking you cannot have it both ways.
(I was gonna put WHITE in there, but didn’t wish to mislead!)
Well, it seems this Nation is indeed separated into
two three factions: Those who support the President-elect, and those who hate him. (And those for whom the jury remains out).
I don’t think our long national nightmare is yet over…
FOUR EIGHT years ago, when the Electoral College put a Black man into the White House? And many on the Right referred to him as The Black Jesus? Because the Left viewed him as the solution to all things ‘wrong’ with the Country.
And, after all, he wasn’t George W. Bush (or his weak carbon copy John McCain? Or Mitt Romney?)
Hope and Change? Fundamentally transform? (Pick one).
Well, now (if we’re thinking racially), we’ve replaced a Black man with a White man. (Not that other Black candidates weren’t possible – Condi Rice? Mia Love? Clarence Thomas?…)
If we’re NOT thinking racially, Mr. Trump is a populist.
He doesn’t appear to have read recent Supreme Court decisions, or, the U.S. Constitution, however. (wanting to ban flag burning, for example – reprehensible speech though it may be).
And Gitmo will remain, as will massive surveillance. As will issues with guns, illegal immigration, terrorism and civil liberties. Pending court decisions on the next administration’s actions.
And, I think many folks are harkening back to the days of Norman Rockwell. (The 40’s, 50’s?) Burying their heads in the sand, because we no longer have a Leftist President. Of whatever color.
Those of us who are concerned with civil liberties need to continue our watch into the next administration.
Lest we become
- “A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.” ~Benjamin Rush, Letter to John Adams, July 21, 1789
- “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” ~James Madison, Federalist Paper 10
- “It has been observed, by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny . . .” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, 1787, p. 253
- “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ~John Adams letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
Were it not for the Electoral College, small densely populated, mostly urban areas on the east and west coasts would have elected Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump. The votes of the inhabitants living in the vast central land mass of the USA would have essentially been of no value, and the needs, opinions, and desires of those citizens would have been ignored by a President who owed them no loyalty. In fact, it would be possible for a candidate to win the election by campaigning only in those highly populated east and west coast areas without setting foot anywhere in between. That egregious lack of equality would lead to a dissolution of the country with unfortunate and disastrous results.
Many might be surprised to learn that the word “Democracy” does not appear in the Bill or Rights or the US Constitution. Nor does it appear in the Constitutions of the 50 States. A Democracy is “mob rule,” a dictatorship of the majority in which 51% of the citizenry rule the other 49%. Our freedoms and liberties are guaranteed to us because the framers of our Constitution, through past experience and careful consideration, gave us a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy . . . A governmental system based on the rule of law and not the rule of the majority.
After the War of Independence and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, when our Constitution was being conceived and written, the total population of the thirteen colonies was estimated to be 2,628,400. The thirteen colonies were not equal in terms of number of inhabitants, with Delaware being the smallest at 45,400 residents and Virginia the largest with 538,000 residents.
Does President-elect DJT have the gravitas to do what is necessary? Without compromising the Constitution?
AH! There’s the rub.
No extra-constitutional executive orders. No bulls-in-china-shops (in spite of the fact he has no verbal filters!)
Of course, as with GWB, it won’t matter what he does or says to some people, just because he’s (in their view) the wrong person.
Bayou Renaissance Man has a take on the recent (and ongoing) unpleasantness (in part):
I’m astonished that no-one has yet pointed out, publicly and loudly, that the organized anti-Trump protests following his victory in last Tuesday’s election are as organized, and as manipulative, as most of the other protests we’ve seen all year long. It’s the same professional agitators, going from issue to issue and from state to state, seizing on any popular idea and transforming it into a lever to undermine our nation, our democracy and our constitution.Consider:
- The Black Lives Matter protests were very clearly organized. Numerous police forces admitted or asserted that ‘outsiders‘ came into town to make trouble, then moved on to the next protest. They were funded by the same source that bankrolled the Ferguson riots ‘protests’.
- As soon as the North Dakota pipeline protests geared up a few months ago, what happened to the BLM protests? Suddenly there was hardly a mention of them. The reason was simple – the activists turning the pipeline protests into a violent anti-police, anti-The-Man free-for-all were often the same ones that had been behind the BLM nastiness.
- Now that President-elect Trump is the focus, what’s happened to the pipeline protests? All of a sudden we don’t hear Word One about them in the media . . . because those organizing them, and spearheading the violence there, are now organizing the protests and spearheading the violence in the anti-Trump protests.
I’d love to be able to examine arrest records, or attendance records, from police forces all over the country, to see how many names and how many faces cropped up at all of the above protests over the past year. I’m willing to bet money there’ll be a lot of overlap.
One hopes Mr. Trump will find a way to cut the Gordian knot that ties all these anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, anti-American organizations and individuals together. It’s long overdue . . . and entirely necessary, IMHO.
An interesting perspective. Could it be that the same protesters move from protest to protest – almost as if it is their job?
(Remembering the OWS protesters and the similar folks who appear after mass shootings)
Finding a way to ‘cut the Gordian knot’ (as Peter puts it) + my .02…
And, of course, recognizing the other guy remains President for a while longer…
Yep. I’m speaking of the recent dustup of things long-time ago said by candidates.
Mr. Trump has been recorded using language that might have originated in a high school locker room. As has Secretary Clinton (at least in print). And her husband. And Jack Kennedy.
And, The President.
Use (or non-use) of such language, of course, is not a qualification for The Presidency.
My question is, what ever happened to the character of individuals? Used to be persons with character aspired to be The President. Washington, Jefferson and John Adams come to mind. All persons of character. Each very different. (Yes, I know Washington and Jefferson owned slaves…)
They were human. I suspect they might have uttered socially-inappropriate language in private moments.
But they rose to the challenge to move this Constitutional Republic forward.
I don’t see that in any of the current of recent candidates.
Now, it’s reported by the Clinton’s that they have victims of rape by Mr. Trump coming forward! Seriously? Not only is the timing questionable, but the whole pot-kettle thing!
I know politics by it’s very nature is dirty. Regardless:
I weep for The Republic.
I ran across this posting on Free North Carolina. I don’t know if I’m smart enough to do the requisite research needed to confirm or deny the premise. But, it IS interesting!
I seem to remember a similar postulate made regarding the Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax).
Wouldn’t it be interesting to find these premises to be true?
David Lawrence, editor of the US News and World Report, argued in late September 1957 that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was never ratified by the requisite number of States, and is therefore null and void. This amendment-by-duress has been used since 1865 as the basis for federal intervention into the constitutionally-specified authority of the individual States, both North and South.Bernhard Thuersam, http://www.Circa1865.com The Great American Political Divide
The Fourteenth Amendment a Disgrace to Free Government
“A mistaken belief — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment” — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America
No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three-fourths of the States of the union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the union at that time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it.
So it failed ratification. The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:
1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment”. (…)
HERE’S A LINK TO THE ENTIRE POST, INCLUDING THE REMAINING SIX POINTS OF EVIDENCE.
And, as a side note, U.S. News and World Report used to be a middle-of-the-road, well-reasoned magazine, when David Lawrence was at the helm.
He passed in 1973.
I remember (way back in the 1970s – when I got into gun stuff as an adult) fantasizing that I lived in a State that had concealed weapon permits! How cool would THAT have been? Being able to be armed – discreetly!
One of the reasons I wanted to become a cop was that very reason. It seemed sad that few States had permittage, and most of them were may issue. Usually meaning unless you were one of the special few (or perhaps funds changed hands) you either did nor carry concealed, or did not carry concealed legally!
Now, here we are in the new century, and the tide has turned. A significant number of States how have concealed weapon laws and some even passed Constitutional Carry – no permit needed!
Specifically, with the addition of Missouri, 11 States (22% of the 50!) no permit required!
41 States, and Guam(!) now have some provision for shall issue permits! (Wikipedia)
Of course, we still have States like California (and New York), with their difficult to get may issue permits, and checkerboard of convoluted and restrictive gun laws.
And with the ever-present nonsense by the Statists equating gun ownership with terrorism. (Hillary?)
BUT, things have definitely improved since the 1940’s, and in spite of warnings to the contrary regarding every CCW (carry concealed weapon) and Constitutional Carry law being passed, there has been no blood in the streets!
(It seems every time such legislation is suggested, the ANTI-RIGHTS folks trot out the same, tired meme.)
It’s been said that the American Revolution was started and maintained by just 3% of the population. In spite of the ubiquitous onslaught of the anti rights control folks, we seem to be winning!
Hooray for the responsible, law-abiding citizens, going about their private business invoking their right to possible self-defense!
Now, if we could just reverse the rampant surveillance and searching without warrant! I know, one Amendment at a time…