Saturday, April 8, 2017

What is The Score on The Supreme Court Now?

As a student of the Supreme Court, I'm thankful that Gorsuch is on the court. We won't actually know for sure if he's the real deal (originalist)...until we see his rulings and written opinions.

Remember....everyone was fooled by John Roberts... including myself....but he (Gorsuch) appears to be a good addition to Thomas and Alito. His answers to the libs questions during confirmation hearings were designed to get through the lib gauntlet...and were somewhat disturbing to me. His past rulings and writings provide probably the most accurate glimpse of his jurisprudence....we shall see. I'm not "all in" until I see some of his rulings and written opinions. Was sucked in by Roberts....not doing that anymore.

That said, if you think that his addition to the court makes it a "conservative" court....you simply have not been paying attention to the courts rulings for the last 10 years and who "lands" in the Majority/Minority opinions of the court. The court currently has two proven originalists out of the now nine members. Gorsuch would be #3. Roberts is not an originalist and cannot be called a "conservative". If you think he is, you will have to explain his ruling and written unconstitutional garbage in the ruling over ZeroCare....the largest and most egregious "living constitution" ruling since Roe.

Anthony Kennedy is certainly no originalist and definitely not a "conservative". Kennedy is the Justice on the court that most cites international law and European law as a basis for his decisions ...even more than Ginsburg does, and that's hard to do! Based on his past actions, Kennedy will most certainly move left on the court with the addition of Gorsuch. His rulings clearly show that he relishes being the so called "swing" vote...and will now lean left just to make sure that the new "conservative" perception of the court is undone.

If Gorsuch is truly an originalist...and I hope he is....the court will now have 3 originalists ouf of nine justices...those are the type justices that are needed for the major issues that will come before the court in the coming years.

The "living constitution nonsense" vs "originalist" score on the Supreme Court of the United States is now 6 to 3 in favor of the "living constitution".

The only way back to limited government under the Rule of Law is through the door of Article V and a Convention of States to propose amendments that target the heart of the Leviathans usurped powers.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The Leviathan vs The People of The States

As I call "balls and strikes" on the President, something I do consistently no matter what party is in the White House....some of you ask me if I'd rather Hillary have won. I'm not sure what the purpose of that question is for reasoned thinkers...but I'll answer it. Of course anything is better than Hillary Clinton. However, that is not the measure to which I'm holding all those that told us that Mr. Trump would "drain the swamp".
It has become abundantly clear with the Presidents abandonment of his promise to lead the effort to repeal ZeroCare, his coalition with those in the House that not only broke their oft stated promise to repeal but now foist a replacement big government sandwich on us... and now his continual attack and all out war against the type House members of who he aligned himself with during his campaign....it has become crystal clear that the Leviathan who owns the swamp....has assimilated the new administration.
I write this today not to take issue again with those attacks against the House Freedom Caucus, I've written a couple posts about that in the last few days. I write today to remind those "conservatives" that have any ears left to hear....that there is but one way that the great swamp Leviathan will be defeated. The framers of our great Constitution predicted that this day would come. The not only predicted that this day would come, they had the foresight to insert a mechanism into the Constitution whereby the states themselves could do what the federal government of Washington D.C. would refuse to do...that is rein itself in.
Today, the federal government not only will not move to restrain it's decades of usurped powers, it simply CANNOT make any moves that would restrain or even contain it's power drunken self. The federal government of Washington D.C. that I refer to as "the "Leviathan" is not incentivized today to roll back accumulated usurped power much less rein those powers in. To the contrary, it is de-incentivized to make any moves that threaten it's powers...again, what I call "usurped" powers because those are powers it was never intended to possess but has taken by what I call "amendment fiat"....meaning they simply amend the document through legislation that is rubber stamped by an out of control federal court system.
If you refer to yourself as a "conservative" today and you are opposed to the only constitutional method left to you and I....the "outsiders"....if you are opposed to the Convention of States process specifically placed into Article V to be used for the people to self govern themselves via their state assemblies...if you are opposed to that process....you simply do not understand that size and power of the Leviathan today.
The states have a lawful, peaceful, Constitutional process to change the power structure today. Yes, I said CHANGE THE POWER STRUCTURE....if you have noticed....the power structure between the federal government and the states has been radically altered. This did not happen overnight. It happened through decades of unconstitutional Article I legislative branch lawmaking, it happened through decades of unconstitutional Article II executive branch lawmaking via executive order, and those powers that have been usurped by those two branches have been codified into a "new" constitution by an out of control Article III federal judiciary court system.
The states possess a process given to them by the framers to change the power structure to correct the usurped and assumed powers back to their original constitutional distribution. This process is correctly and historically referred to as a "Convention of States". Unfortunately, far too many conservatives have bought into the utterly false narrative that somehow this is a "dangerous" process. It is not. The framers told us that this was supposed to be a "regular" process used to "check" the federal government EVERY TIME it attempted to exceed it's constitutional boundaries.
It's really time for conservatives to wake up to the truth and get over their fears of Article V. You who are in this camp of fear...you continue to perpetuate the powers of the Leviathan.
Please pass this on to your friends that claim "conservatism" and help educate them.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The 229 Year Old Message From Col. George Mason

Permit me to share a very Important Constitutional history lesson with you. The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (today referred to as the Constitutional Convention) had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 229 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature.


"Col. Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).




To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.



Then by the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and the states could request that Congress propose specific amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this...they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2016, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.




Sunday, September 11, 2016

Who Do The Article V CoS Opponents Really Stand With?

Keep this in mind when you hear opposition to using the process for the states to offer amendments to the Constitution....those that have any understanding at all of this process recognize that there are two ways under Article V to propose amendments to the United States Constitution: (1) Congress can propose amendments anytime they like (so technically they are in perpetual convention) (2) The states gathered in a called Convention can propose amendments. Either method only produces "proposed amendments", amendments from either vehicle MUST be sent back to all 50 states where 3/4ths (38) states must ratify them for them to become part of the U.S. Constitution.
So keep this in mind, when you are confronted by someone who claims to be on "our side"....in other words they claim to stand for limited government and the Constitutions original meaning....keep in mind that when you encounter opposition to the 2nd "mode" of amending....you are encountering an individual that stands resolutely with the status quo.
The reason I state this is because they hate when I tell them that....they call me a liar...and tell me that "you know that I don't stand with the status quo".....but folks....let me walk through the logic here....if one opposes the mode whereby the states can do what Congress WILL NEVER do....then logically one is standing with the Congress and the Washington D.C cartel as the only means by which we can propose amendments to correct the "abuses" as the founders told us would come. They tell us in their writings that they gave us the 2nd mode that permits the states to act ...specifically as a method for the states to reset the meaning of the text when the federal government (through the courts) perverted the Constitution. This person would deny the people of the states to use the lawful and Constitutional tool to self govern.
It is only logical that if one opposes the use of the 2nd mode....that they are standing with those that hold the 1st mode.
Their actions betray their words.
They stand with the Leviathan over the states.

Monday, September 5, 2016

A Convention of States - Part 2 Answering the "Runaway Convention" and other Arguments

I’d like to continue today with a couple of the other most oft heard arguments opposing the process given to us by the framers in order for the people of the states to respond to an out of control federal government. One of these is a bit more complex so if you really want to understand, please read all the way through and bear with me.
(1) One of the other arguments goes like this….they tell you that an Article V Convention will be a “runaway convention”, that the commissioners to such a convention will destroy the Constitution. They base this on their absolutely historically inaccurate understanding of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. As a matter of fact my use of the word “understanding” in my above statement is being overly generous. What those that make this argument have is anything but an “understanding”.
They claim that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a “runaway convention”. They claim that the men who gave us our great Constitution somehow did something wrong at that convention. The ironic thing is that this view actually started with the left in the mid 50s and 60s….part of their attempt to scare the states away taking up their powers under Article V. That fact aside, wouldn’t that then make our Constitution illegal? If those men did disobey their charge at Philadelphia, wouldn’t that make them less than honorable?
They don’t explain those inconsistencies because the “runaway convention” myth of 1787 is nothing more than the biggest historical lie ever told ever told in our nation’s history. The truth of the matter for anyone wanting to do just a little historical research is that those men completely OBEYED their charge and amended the Articles of Confederation to meet what they called the “exigencies” of the union….or the emergency in the union. I cannot tell you how many times I have had someone tell me that “they were just supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation”. Then I ask them where they got that from…and they tell me someone else told them that.
James Madison in Federalist #40 tells us exactly what the commissioners to Philadelphia were charged to do….they were charged to “devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution [Articles of Confederation] of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union”. The fact of the matter is that they were given broad latitude to save a young nation that was in grave danger due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. And by the way, logic tells us that if you make one amendment or 500 amendments, you still amended the document. My youngest daughter understood that when I asked her that question one day. If you make one amendment or many, didn’t you still “amend” it?
No my dear fellow Convention of States patriots, every time you hear the argument that an Article V Convention of States will “runaway” because the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ran away, I want you to realize that to take that position, you have to trash the founders. You have to call James Madison a liar for what he wrote in Federalist #40 where he explains in simple terms what happened in that convention. The fearmongers simply cannot have it both ways, either they were honorable men that did their duty and gave us our great Constitution, or they were charlatans that disobeyed their commissions. I for one….will stand with the founders and their integrity.
(2) One other argument put forth…this one specifically is used by the John Birch Society and by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum. They tell you about a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that said an Article V Convention of States is a bad or dangerous idea….they don’t tell you that this same Justice, Warren Burger, was the man that presided over and was part of the 7 member majority in the famous Roe V Wade case that has given us 60 million dead babies. Why don’t they tell you that? Is it because they figure you will put two and two together? That you will realize that logically, one of the most left wing and activist justices in our nation history would not be supportive of any effort that would STRIP HIM OF HIS POWER! So they keep that little sordid and horrific tidbit from you.

A Convention of States - Part 1 Answering the "They're not following it now" Argument

The following is often heard as a reason to oppose the Convention of States Project: "They are not following the Constitution today, so what makes you think they will follow any amendments?"
While this sounds good on the surface, and the questioner often has an arrogant look of "gotcha" on his/her face....(trust me on this one, I've been out speaking and presenting the COS Project for almost three years...and this never fails to occur just as I have described it). However, this question fails the test of honest intellectual scrutiny. As a matter of fact, that statement/argument fails that test miserably.
(1) It is simply not true that ALL of the Constitution is being ignored...that simply is a falsehood perpetrated by people that either will not think for themselves or people that are disingenuous. I ask those people one simple question: "Why have we not had a President since FDR serve more than two terms"? This usually leaves a puzzled look on their faces.....but the answer is simple....because the Congress and the Courts ARE following the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution....they are following that amendment to the letter today. I could also ask why women still get to vote every election? Again this would draw a puzzled look....the answer is that Congress and the Courts ARE following the 19th Amendment to the Constitution to the letter today. I could do this over and over again with ALL of the modern amendments (Post 14th)....ALL of those amendments are followed to the letter. The reason is that there has not been enough time to twist and pervert many of those (or the will to do so).
(2) Although no one would agree with the crux of that statement more than I would (I teach Constitutional Law and Original Intent), the question betrays a deep ignorance of HOW and WHY much of the Constitution is ignored today. The courts are operating off of the decades of twisted and perverted interpretations of the original text of the body of the Constitution. If you were to ask any of the 535 members of the United States Congress why they ignore the Constitution, none are going to agree with you that they ignore it, they are going to point across the street to the United States Supreme Court and tell you that the SCOTUS tells them that what they are doing is Constitutional. Hence we have a problem with the current interpretation of what they are using. They are following the modern interpretation (albeit twisted) of the Constitution. There is no question that new amendments today can be used to "re-calibrate" the interpretation of areas that are the most abused due to twisted interpretations.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

The "Court Consequence" Argument

For those that have ears to hear and those that want to be able to offer the facts and truth to others concerning the Supreme Court issue. Some will dismiss this as arrogance because it makes them feel better about dismissing what I'm saying. Last Saturday morning I exposited on the Supreme Court and federal court issue. I keep reading variations of this idea that not voting for a particular candidate "guarantees losing the Supreme Court for the next 30 years". I see and hear this written and spoken by people that have no idea what they are talking about on this subject. I mean no disrespect, but some people simply don't like my frankness. I have zero expertise on mixing rocket fuel....so the charge of having no idea what I'm talking about on that subject is an accurate charge....I would not take offense to that charge against me....I've not studied "mixing rocket fuel".

However, I do have a tremendous amount of expertise on the United States Supreme court and the two lower tiers in the federal court system. I teach the appellate system from the state Supreme Courts through the 94 Federal Circuit Courts, on up through the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, into the Supreme Court of the United States. I am certainly not the final say on things of opinion, but I can certainly speak with authority on how appeals are worked through the federal judiciary system and how SCOTUS rulings are written from Majority opinions to dissenting opinions and all concurring opinions. I understand where the federal courts are today and much more importantly, exactly how we got where we are with a federal court system that is utterly untethered from its constitutional anchor.

So when armchair court quarterbacks start espousing about what is going to happen in the federal courts based on a lack of a vote for a certain candidate, forgive me if I roll my eyes a bit....no....a lot.

I have written and spoken extensively on this subject for the national Convention of States Project staff on the issue of how we got where we are today.....how the current state of the federal judiciary did not happen overnight.

What you need to understand...that is if you are interested in understanding the facts and truth no matter what your decision is for your vote....what you need to understand is the actual current state of the federal court system. At present count, there are over 850 members of the federal judiciary including currently 8 members of the SCOTUS and 800 + members divided up in the lower two tiers. All of those members are appointed for life barring Congressional use of removal powers embedded in Article I. Those powers simply are not used anymore. You can harangue on how they need to use them and you would find agreement with me....but reality is that the political cost has become so high....Impeachment Power will probably never be used again. A clear indicator of the need for structural change in our Constitution for those that understand this....but I digress...more on that later.

Let me move onto the real substance of what I want to say about this "court consequences" line of reasoning.

Talking to my now very close friend Claude O'Donovan the other day, Claude said something to me that I knew...but his words brought into sharper focus for me. He said to me that the "political capital" (cost if you will) for getting an originalist confirmed on the Supreme Court today is so high ....so very high that it simply is not realistic to believe that any candidate will be able to do that....much less what we're dealing with in today's options. He nailed it.

The truth that we all need to understand....and this ties in with the Convention of States Project effort....the cold hard truth is that Washington D.C....and in this case specifically that the Article III branch Supreme Court is SO out of control, so very far out of control...and the Article I branch Congress who is supposed to "check" and balance the Article III branch....is so far out of control that there will be no more removal (Impeachment) of rogue court members. The corresponding truth is that the cost of seating a true originalist in the caliber of Scalia or Thomas is so high under the reality of the current system (not the original system) that no President, much less any of the current candidates could get one confirmed. The Republicans who hold a majority in the Senate have no stomach for a fight of that magnitude and the Democrats in the minority have shown time and time again that they will get what they want even from a Republican majority. If any of you doubt this....or don't understand what I'm saying, do some research into the confirmation hearings of a man named Robert Bork and current justice Clarence Thomas. The left unleashes all out HELL on any candidate for the Supreme Court that is a true originalist.

The candidates for the Supreme Court today that will be confirmed by a Republican president....any President....will not be in that caliber. Even my pick for the nomination Senator Cruz....would not have been able to get a Scalia or Thomas confirmed....I'm convinced he would have nominated folks of that caliber, but it is very unlikely that he would have ever gotten them confirmed.

I'm not trying to give you gloom and doom....I'm giving you truth and the cold hard facts of where the federal courts and the Congress are today. Of course the Executive branch is out of control too....but this explanation really centers on Supreme Court members and who gets nominated and confirmed.

You may not believe this....but what I'm telling you is accurate and can be seen if you will look critically. Under the current system and the current political environment, those two things will virtually block any seating of a court nominee that will do what needs to be done. The best you will get from the candidate in question will be nominees that have the veneer of originalism much like Justice Roberts....but that is a very thin veneer that will peel off under the heat lamp of a major case pertaining to the expansion of the federal Leviathan.

This is why you hear those of us repeating over and over our support and advocacy for the Convention of States Project. As much as some folks hate to hear this....because they simply do not understand all of what I just wrote....our system today is so far out of whack....so very far removed from Constitutional moorings that no election can fix it .....our system needs structural change. By structural change we mean changes to the structure of the separation of power....to regain separation of powers. Term Limits for the Congress and probably more importantly the federal courts. Mechanisms that give the states real teeth to push back on rogue actions of the federal Leviathan in the form of supermajority provisions for state overrides of federal laws and Supreme Court decisions (see Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments") and resetting of the most abused portions of Constitutional text.

To sum it all up....the arguments about "court consequences" for voting or not voting for one particular candidate sound good...and have provided medicinal salve for a lot of people to get over their repulsion of one candidate....that argument does not hold up under any level of honest and scholarly scrutiny.