An Example of the Folly of the supreme Court

In US v Lopez (1995), the Court found that banning guns from around schools was unconstitutional, that it was beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.

In the dissent, Souter wrote of the "old judicial pretension [that had been] discredited and abandoned" from which "the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago."

What he referred to was the pre-Court Packing scandal Court that was more in line with the Constitution. It was "untenable jurisprudence."

So, in Souter's view, the pre-1937 Court had been "abandoned."

But, here comes Kennedy with his concurrence with the Court saying, "stare decisis ... counsel[s] us not to call into questionthe essential principles now in place."

So, here we have Souter saying that we have to abandon the old ways, but Kennedy holding that we are bound to the old ways.

Now, the way things have been going, this nation is actually ruled by five guys in black robes (the majority). Sure, Congress and the president are involved, but the final say has been taken by the supreme Court when they usurped a power not granted them in the Constitution; judicial review.

However, these robe-clad guys are telling diametrically opposed stories. We end up with our lives being dictated by whatever OPINION sways the Court.

Obviously, not by LAW, because the LAW is the LAW, regardless of any opinion. A speed limit sign says "30 mph" and it means "30 mph," not, "oh, I think it means 42 mph..."

The same is true for the Constitution, except there are five guys who get to decide that it does mean 42 mph, regardless of the words.

If the Court was infallible, then Souter and Kennedy would not be so different in their words. They'd both agree that either decisions from pre-37 mattered or they did not.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.


But, the left doesn't care about the Constitution, they've been wiping their feet on it since FDR. To them, it is something to get around, to be avoided, to be spat upon, a source of words that they arrange in any order they like to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is nothing more than ink on a page. It has no intrinsic means to provide for its own defense. Without good men to support it, to defend it, it will fail to protect us from the overreaching dictates of those intent upon its destruction - like Obama and his supporters.

Students in schools are taught the falsehood that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document; that it magically morphs upon the whims of society. Those who support this concept ignore that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, not a collection of suggestions, to alter and twist as the majority deems.

The LAW of the Constitution in no way supports Obamacare. It is a wretched and criminal misinterpretation to say that it does. This nation moved closer to death when Roberts cast his vote; he hammered home another nail into the coffin built by FDR and carried by the socialist liberals and progressives of this once-great nation, to sink within the grave dug by an apathetic electorate and a complicit Congress.

Obama must be removed in the coming election. Those in Congress who voted for this sucking chest wound of a law must be voted out as soon as they come up for reelection. We must return to the dream of America, the path the Founding Fathers laid before us, that we left almost a century ago and have refused to tread ever since.

When asked what the Constitution gave us, Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, our possession of it hangs by a thread, a thread that may well be severed utterly, if Obama and his ilk retain office. A thread that, if broken, may remove our Republic from us irretrievably.

Taxing Behavior is Now Constitutional

The obamacare law is the least of our worries from today's flawed supreme Court decision.


What is far more important is the precedent the Court set by deciding that it is constitutional to tax behavior.

The left is having a field day - well they should as they are in dire straits of losing their messiah in November - their jubilation and foul, crude posts on various blogs demonstrate just how much in fear they were of their pride and joy being denied.

They are cheering now, but if anything is consistent in politics it is that things change.

Someday, there might be a majority in Congress with a friendly Executive that is not quite to their liking. Then, will they be so happy when this political party starts taxing the behavior they want to control?

Be careful on what you cheer about - some day, you may not like how it is applied against you.

Miller vs. Heller

No, not the latest UFC heavyweight bout.

But, an exploration of an interesting twist in the law...

In January 1939, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas heard argument in US vs. Miller concerning a sawed-off shotgun found in the defendant's truck when a raid for a still failed to find anything. Defense argued that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed.

The USAG appealed to the supreme Court and in March 1939 the Court heard the case. They reversed the lower court's decision saying that there was no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had any value as a militia weapon and so did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. Essentially saying only military-style weapons are protected.

Now, fast forward almost 65 years to Feb of 2003.

A lawsuit is brought against the District of Columbia contesting the District's draconian gun laws. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit.

The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed the decision saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

Petition was made to advance the case to the supreme Court and they agreed in November of '07 (looks like things went a lot faster seven decades ago).

In June of '08, the Court decided and reversed the Circuit Court's finding. That the "District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The supreme Court also decided, "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

So, to give the Cliff's Notes version, Miller says the Second Amendment protects military-style weapons and, so, a sawed-off shotgun is not a protected firearm.

But, now we have Heller that has decided that the Second Amendment protects only non-military use firearms (actually, a silly decision - what non-military firearm is of any use to a militia?).

Heller has reversed the prohibition in Miller and given Second Amendment protections to the sawed-off shotgun.

I wonder how long before this sinks in...

The System Works

===========================
2 Patriot Act Provisions Ruled Unlawful

Sep 26 07:17 PM US/Eastern

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
===========================

Of course, sometimes, the system fails, as in Kelo v. New London - or, Dred Scott. But, that doesn't make notice of successes any less important.