Tag Archives: United states supreme court

RECKLESS SUPREME COURT

Posted on by

0

A draft memo was leaked. CALL THE COPS!

Who benefits from the leak? Pro-life conservatives. The memo changed THE LAW, because that is what every court decision becomes. Each decision from a trial court, of an appellate court or a Supreme Court is, a law just as though it were passed by a legislature and singed by a governor.

THE LAW about women’s health has been off-limits to legislature action for 49 years. Now the Supreme Court draft brings forward this bedroom issue into the legislature arena. What happened to a [wo]man’s home is a castle? What happened to the sanctity of marriage and marital privileges? What happened to victim’s rights? What happened to the Establishment Clause which says, “Congress [courts and executive] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Religion also means favoring the tenants of one faith over another. Invading and deciding bedroom issues are a gross enlargement of the government’s policing powers. Under the Constitution, as it is interprets prohibitions of illegal searches and seizure, those protections are weakened. Changing THE LAW more or less eliminates the right to privacy.

Note also that most right to life advocates live in states that do not protect fetuses. Most of their local laws consider fetuses, expectancies.

Why would the right to life justices leak the draft of the proposed decision? It will not be nine-zero (9-0) opinion like Brown vs. Board of Education and refuting Nixon’s claims of Executive Privilege. Those Justices do not know where the American people stand about bedroom issues, marriage, abortion, women’s health, right to privacy, Fourth Amendment, etc. Some justices are so far off that they want to impose their version of thought, philosophy and faith on all Americans like Trump stooge Michael Flynn said at the beginning of 1922, and Ginny Thomas-Mark Meadows’ exchanges after the 2020 Election. What would Americans think about Big Brother (Don Trump or anyone else) telling them what to think? Yet, the those justices may believe they can write a Supreme Court decision and it becomes THE NEW LAW. It will settle social and political issues in America.

James Madison wrote the Establishment Clause (for Virginia in 1786) and next to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Madison recognized Americans are human beings and imperfect. He set up the Establishment Clause so no faith, philosophy or thought could gain government support outside politics and the world of politics. For his efforts and success, Thomas Jefferson called Madison, “the greatest man in the world.”

Why are those Supreme Court justices concerned about changing THE LAW? It has happened before, in 1857.

DRED SCOTT is the worst decision ever from the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roger Taney, slave owner from Maryland, wrote it. The Supreme Court entered the political arena. The opinion broadly stated that the federal government could not prohibit the spread of slavery – plus slaves were not citizens. By defining slaves as non-citizens, and perhaps extending non-citizenship to all African-Americans, including those who were always free or

1 Already the Court has shown wanton disregard with the Texas Bounty Law.

page1image1656272

who were once enslaved and bought their freedom, African-Americans had no liberties, freedoms, rights and privileges enshrined in the United States Constitution. End of story, end of political disagreement.

DRED SCOTT did not end the debate over slavery. Its political effects helped bring on the Civil War in 1861. In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment made involuntarily servitude a legislative (political) issue. By 1870 the Fourteenth Amendment changed fundamental structure of the Federal/State system and gave everyone in America constitutional rights.

Going forward and writing a decision, THE LAW, broadly, about women’s health, alone, will change all laws – state and federal, those justices wonder and have doubts. Americans have made decisions without interference from the policing powers of the government, yet a few know Americans will be startled and will not like new government powers invading their bedrooms and elsewhere. Those Supreme Court justices are concerned. They leaked the draft opinion and now realize women’s health all other issues are political questions and outside the court’s realm.

SAVE OUR FETUSES

Posted on by

0

The United States Supreme Court is about to enlarge law and impose new procedures and protections in every state by going beyond the limits of Article III of the Constitution, It is totally brand new law, presented without restraint and uncontrolled. Currently, fetuses are treated horribly; the cruel, harsh state laws work against unborn human beings can be changed with the flick of a pen. State legislatures can huba-huba, chop-chop, or the U.S. Supremes will do it piecemeal in an attempt to bring another nine months of life to the human race. Life expectancy will increase. But fetuses need legal standing, so fetuses can instantly protect themselves throughout their status until birth. Once a fetus is born such protections end. Everyone knows babies are like the rest of us and have to take their chances on the globe.

In the meantime without a change of statutes, fetuses suffer from discrimination in the most mean, base, vile ways, yet no state has gone whole hog to protect them. No federal court will interfere with the slightest changes any state wants to make. Again, there is no political will to protect fetuses. Following are examples of fetus abuse in all the states.

I. If a mother with a fetus is emotionally injured but has no physical injury, no one cares about the fetus. Yet, when the mother suffers emotional injury, the fetus also suffers. more intensely; a fetus, a young human being, is more vulnerable and frail – scars from the womb last a lifetime. These sorts of situations arise when emotional distress flows from many acts – intentional infliction of emotional distress, breaches of fiduciary duties, fraud and deceit cases, breaches of privacy (e.g.concealed or hidden cameras), attacks on pets, destruction of personal property, etc. Law suits should allow fetuses to recover for themselves regardless of whether the mother sues.

II. All of paragraph I is included here. When a mother is also physically injured, recovery of damages should be allowed to the fetus. For instance, assaults and batteries; car crashes whether deliberate or negligent; drunk driving, stuff falling from the sky including flying craft and plunging sky divers; being non-vaccinated; gun shot wounds; drug usage; whiskey drinking; over medication from pharmacies or from the street; spouse beating; boyfriend fights; smash and grabs. If any of these mishaps occur when the fetus is in the womb, the fetus alone should recover damages against wrong-doers, bad guys, perpetrators, cold-blooded felons and anyone else who does not care whether the fetus is hurt. Some of these actions involve crimes, and obviously the fetus is a victim of the unsettled society following crime.

III. Negligence is a big field in civil law, and on its own a fetus should recover damages on its own if the host, the mother with fetus is so affected. This includes falling, slip and falls, missteps, lack of good health, exercising excessively or not enough, smoking, sucking and inhaling reefers, workplace accidents; causing a miscarriage; not having enough folic acid; failure to get proper pre-natal care; medical malpractice; and suits against insurance companies who refuse to pay promptly. (Having an insurance company refuse to pay when the policy is paid up, is a deliberate act and causes hurt and damages.)

IV. And the fetus, being a recognizable human being, should be allowed to sue the mother who carried him to birth – affirm or disavow her. With advances in genetics and our understanding of the tiny, wee and pee, itsy-bitsy world of things, a fetus should be able to sue for bad genes: Too tall; too short; tends to fat up; has no brains or has a weak mind; inherited mental illnesses; needs plastic surgery in a decade; is not quick enough to be in professional sports. These are legitimate issues arising when allowing fetuses to think!

V. At least one other category should be mentioned. Commerce. Fetuses should pay their own way from conception – pay taxes, income and otherwise. And fetuses should be allowed to enter into contracts, be represented by attorneys, be able to enforce contract rights, assignments and rights as third party beneficiaries, and be entitled to rights to privacy!

Paragraphs I through V should be enacted by states nationwide. These rights to sue are the birthright of every American fetus. There are no Constitutional issues when legislatures protect American fetuses, human beings who have rights in law, and are expressed the natural laws of liberties and freedoms, like those being claimed by rioters on January 6, 2021! Passing the legislation above might impose burdens on society. Bureaucracies might come into being just to monitor the state of fetuses in the United States. A Bureau of Fetus Immunity might become a necessary cabinet post.

However, there is resistance and no political will. Given the history of this country, Americans will break these laws often or over look them because nobody in America cares about unborn fetuses. The absence of laws protecting fetuses suggests what Americans really think about womb-livers – fetuses are what they have always been: Expectancies (not expectations). An expectancy, like winning the lottery, is something that might happen, or not.

That has been the public policy of all the individual states in the United States of America. Expectancies have made fetus law uncomplicated: Fetuses are expectancies and give them no more thought; they have no rights whatsoever. This status must change because if fetuses are to be protected, the public policy of the states must change. After all, public policy, reflected in the status of the current state statutes nationwide, is the will of the American people. To leave fetuses as expectancies in all the states, that is no public policy. It is neglect; it is careless; it is reckless; it is abusive. It allows fetuses to be murdered and injured in hundreds of ways with no penalty or compensation. If fetuses are to be protected, each state must act now!

The United States Supreme Court is on its way to the rescue – change a millennium of Anglo- American jurisprudence without a thought, without a analysis and without a spec of knowledge. The legal precedent of expectancies began when the Duke of Normandy, grabbed a girl from the field (a daughter of a leatherworker) and forcibly impregnated her with William. It was a complete surprise because no one expected that illegitimate child to grow up to become William the Conqueror of England of 1066 fame.Thereafter, that expectancy, William, was known as The Bastard. William also shows that expectancies can illegitimately grow up well. Moreover, it shows marriage and criminal laws might need changing to increase the gene pool of persons that society must tolerate to produce the best stock.

I hate to lose the present precedent about expectancies, through actions by an activist, unthinking, emotional court that does not respect tradition, customs and ancient laws. The floodgates of court involvement in fetus rights are about to open and become enforceable throughout the U.S.A. It’s big money for litigation lawyers and butt-sitting transactional guys. Chaos in the courts will bring a new world.

NEW MARTHA MITCHELL

Posted on by

0

Remember the old Martha Mitchell, wife of Attorney General John Mitchell? She not related to Margaret or to Andrea. She was nicknamed, Mouth of the South, and forcibly sedated by a shrink. While intoxicated on something himself, Nixon said she had a drinking problem. 

The new Martha Mitchell is Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court. 

Ginni believes she can scold persons who she disagrees with using Twitter-like words. It is Twitter when the writer writes “u” rather than “you,” and uses words that comprise incomplete sentences.

Ginni wrote: “To all the kids that walked out of school to protest guns. Those are the shoes of Jews that gave up their firearms to Hitler. They were led into gas chambers, murdered and buried in mass graves. Pick up a history book and you’ll realize what happens when u give up freedoms and why we have them.” (From The Hill website.)

Also from The Hill website Ginni rants, “I want the old regular America back,…MINUS left’s awful tactics.”

First Issue: Is this how Clarence Thomas wants to be represented? It detracts from the dignity and the serenity of the Supreme Court. It suggests on any Second Amendment issue, Clarence Thomas has already made up his mind and is forcibly influenced by an intimate voice. He should disqualify himself from those deliberations and any Court opinion. It supports the inference that if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself, he has not fulfilled his oath of office: He is not servicing “in good behavior.”

Second Issue: Americans can expect anyone writing about Constitutional issues and politics to discuss the issues using rational means, unlike an angry Don Trump tweet. Perhaps Ginni Thomas knows her audience and apparently like herself, she knows the full extent of the attention span: State what is needed in 25 words or less. Framers of the Constitution, except Luther Martin, had longer attention spans than 25 words. No one arguing about the Bill of Rights in Congress in August, 1789, would listen to Ginni. 

Third Issue: Ginni urges gun protestors to read and learn history. That is commendable. But what of her history?

Ginni is ignorant. No one in Europe except the Swiss, had customs and statutory policies [not Constitutional Rules],  about owning and using firearms. Neither Jews nor anyone else had access to firearms. No one gave up firearms and next were marched into concentration camps. Where most of the Jewish victims of the camps came from – Central and Eastern Europe – there were no rights to bear arms.

Would the Holocaust have happened in a state where everyone could obtain firearms is a consideration which is off-point. It the German “left” had arms, would they have begun a Civil War to stave off Hitler? That’s a “what if” question. Note in Iraq Saddam Hussein let Iraqis bear arms, yet they lived under a “brutal” dictatorship.

What is the history in the old regular America of the 1960s. Eldridge Cleaver called for responses from “armed mad N—–s.” I don’t know how Ginni balances things because Cleaver was on the “left,” but he favored using firearms.

Also in the history of the old regular America were the right to bear arms and using them to kill political persons, “the left.” For instance within the life of Clarence Thomas, the Civil Rights Movement lost two notable figures Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King along with others trying to gain rights under the United States Constitution.   

Is is unfair to infer that the rant from Ginni Thomas suggests, Guys with guns have a right to kill everyone on “the left?” 

It is unlikely Ginni Thomas wants to leave that impression, but who knows? Her powers of communication must amplify beyond the 25 words-or-less audience.

Go back to Jim Crow days, does the old regular America include the times when some African Americans used guns to threaten whites and the KKK? Books have been written, but apparently unread and not considered.

“I want the old regular America back…MINUS the left’s awful tactics.” Does that support the America favored by Roy Moore, who believed everything in America was good and fine, when America had slavery, before the Thirteenth Amendment?

Fourth Issue: There is vehemence and hate in Ginni Thomas’s statements. During Bob Dole’s concession speech after the 1996 election results became public, he was interrupted by someone in the audience calling Bill Clinton “an enemy.” Dole corrected that voice: Bill Clinton was my opponent, not my enemy. Curiously, one can write derogatorily and humorously about an opponent, but that writing is very difficult against an enemy.

I grew up in a Conservative community and most of the people were ignorant and dull. I next went to Berkeley where the students and residents were ignorant, excitable and drugged. I learned along the way the all Americans must learn how to express themselves and support social and political positions beyond slogans, advertising or otherwise. (See Mein Kampf for political usefulness of slogans.) Americans are beyond Hitler and beyond the old regular America, unless they resort to homilies, slogans, chants, cheers, bromides, mottos and shibboleths. 

As Americans we must do better. Don’t wait for your opponents to steal a base or get a leg up. Do better now!   

EMPIRE OF LIBERTY

Posted on by

0

By Gordon Wood

The chapters and passages in Empire of Liberty about unpolitical, business affairs, social events and participating individuals are the strongest: Education, the arts, society, sociologies and cultural anthropologies of business, and the general thinking of Americans and their temper and mood. On that score the book is invaluable.

Exposition about the government, politics and the men is flawed. I observe in one Amazon criticism, the commentator states the book is episodic. To describe business and social activities, arrangements and the men by episode can make an accurate presentation. The actions and the individuals are usually isolated from one another.

Telling of national politics and the men in episodes tells nothing, no story and little about the men and the issues that were changing. This approach weakens Empire. These men – Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and others – knew one another well. They acted and reacted, playing games against strengths and weaknesses of the others. Madison excelled at the game playing. He set things up, stepped back and watched.

He may have been the Father of the Constitution, and the Father of American Politics and the Father of the Bill of Rights, but for eight years 1815-1823, there was little or no political opposition in the United States. That was Madison.

All historians, political scientists and others rely on Madison’s Notes of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Yet in 1789 and after when Madison was in Congress guiding Revenue Bills though, establishing Cabinet offices, advancing the Bill of Rights, setting the Capital site, working on the debt, Empire inaccurately describes the proceedings and a culminating result in the Grand Compromise of 1790. No one believes or relies on Madison. Empire is remiss in this omission.

Consider corporations [Charters of Incorporation], an issue of 1791. The American colonial experience was the king’s granting charters, thereby setting up monopolies. The East India Company of Tea Party fame was one such entity. Americans disfavored corporations. When Madison proposed during the Constitutional Convention to give Congress the power to grant charters(1787), it was rejected.

Empire presents the impression that charters of incorporation were well know and working in America. Its view is anachronistic, using law and facts of the 1880s. Two excellent attorneys/justices of the early Republic, James Wilson and John Marshall, dismissed the business form in the 1790s. A real go at incorporation was made by John Jacob Astor in 1807; it does not resemble anything presented in Empire. (See David Lavender, Fist In The Wilderness) [Note Abraham Lincoln studying law in Illinois during the 1830s found the corporate form new and interesting,
(David Herbert Donald, Lincoln)]

Note in Empire the text relies on the Dartmouth case (1819), 30 years after the first Congress. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion but did not discuss the power to incorporate, or who had it. He interpreted the law, documents and contracts, and the Constitution.

Other errors in Empire suggest the author did not research and write the text, or he was exceedingly careless.
Page 446. George Mason, according to Madison’s Notes of the Constitutional Convention, 1787, said almost nothing during debates. He did not favor the Council of Revision; James Wilson and James Madison vociferously supported this issue and suffered repeated defeats. George Mason wanted a Council of the Executive like the one existing in Virginia, to control the Governor. Mason had written the Virginia Constitution. At the national level such a Council would control the President.
After William Haller’s books about Puritanism, no historian should ever call anyone in New England a Calvinist, a European term. In Empire the text does. However, the text reveals Presbyterians and Independents (Cromwell’s sect) in the Dartmouth case. (Pilgrims were separatists.) Almost everyone else in the settling of New England was an Independent, to become known in the eighteenth century as Congregationalists.
Misquotes misrepresent Jefferson and Madison’s opinions of the Constitution. Empire uses early quotes. Both men evolved in their thinking, leaving earlier opinions, like Hamilton’s statements, historical additives and eccentricities. Indeed both Jefferson and Madison were willing to use precedent to sidestep Constitutional rigors. During the legislation and ratification of the Louisiana Purchase (1803), Rufus King wondered how they could change governmental power defined by the Constitution by using the Treaty Power. Jefferson and Madison merely used the same processes employed by the Federalists when they passed the Jay Treaty(1796). The same procedures were used at the end of the Mexican-American war (1848).
John Taylor of Caroline County (Virginia) is misrepresented. He is hardly the philosopher of the Republican Party. He had a father figure who lived close by, Edmund Pendleton, perhaps the best judge of the eighteenth century English world. Pendleton was known, respected and loved by everyone – Henry, Washington, Jefferson, Marshall. He was a confident of Madison’s. How prominent was Pendleton, other than being on Virginia’s highest court? In 1765 after it was discovered that John Robinson, Speaker of the House of Burgesses, had embezzled public funds, mostly giving the money to prominent Virginians, Pendleton undertook the task of getting the money back. By 1803 the job was not complete; he died. He left the work to John Marshall. In 1798 Pendleton published in newspapers a letter critical of President Adams, his administration and the Federalists. No one came down the lane to arrest Pendleton for violation of the Sedition Act. This is all to say that at best, John Taylor was a puppet for the men (Pendleton and Madison) pulling the strings in the backroom.
It is anachronistic as Empire does to view “null and void” as Southerners did in 1830-1865. Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, originally intended for North Carolina, was greatly changed by Wilson Cary Nicholas and the Kentucky Legislature. Jefferson proposed Committees of Correspondence in each state to communicate and to react to the Alien and Sedition Acts. (1798) What did Jefferson mean by “null and void?” He likely relied on the same definition used by that infamous radical/revolutionary, James Otis of Massachusetts (1764): “As the Acts of Parliament, An Act against the Constitution is void: An Act against natural Equity, it should be void; and if the Act of Parliament be made, in the very words of the Petition, it should be void.” The word, null, has no legal impact without its mate void.
P. 184. Empire praises Hamilton’s Pacificus essays, but they are difficult to defend. Facts deleted from Empire manifest Madison’s response (Helvidius Essays) destroyed Hamilton’s essays by citing The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, against assertions Pacificus.

Other issues of error and misrepresentation appear in Empire. One chapter is a mundane discussion of points of Judicial Review, a power given the Courts by the sovereign. In the 1780s Massachusetts abolished slavery within the state by Judicial Review (opinion and judgment). In Virginia the Court of Blair, Wythe, and Pendleton accepted the power; it was taught in law courses. John Marshall grew up knowing it, read the Constitution and participated in the Virginia Convention (1788). He further discussed all legal issues with Madison and Pendleton and others and was influenced long before the opinions of Marbury vs. Madison and other cases.

Err in Empire of Liberty distorts the politics and the economics, and a complete view of the 1789-1815 period; each wrong has not been set forth. In Empire men of the Early Republic are unknown to one another. Legislation and proposals are isolated and presented as surprises, oddities and ineffective efforts to accomplish their purposes. No man was correct all the time, but the sense that Hamilton is correct, is wrong. e.g. He was instrumental in his party’s loss in the election of 1800, once again those facts being omitted from Empire.