The Pundit456

[thepundit456]

CULTIVATING RACISM

Racism is alive and well in America, by design. For people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the NAACP, the Ferguson Missouri tragedy w...

Black History Month perpetuates racism.

[thepundit456]

BLACK HISTORY MONTH TETHERS BLACKS TO INFERIORITY

Black History Month is an egregious assault against American Blacks, tantamount to the attempt to establish "ebonics" as Black language; and it does more to demean them than affirmative action. Anc...

[thepundit456]

UNFRIENDED BY FACEBOOK OVER KIM DAVIS

Facebook has implemented a more targeted, and far more dangerous, method of acquiring information about people, and or silencing them, than the massive data accumulation method used by the National Security Agency (NSA). Facebook demands that certain people submit to it a photo identification document, with date of birth, for continued access to its site.

Facebook demands up to three pieces of identification if the name, photo and date of birth do not all appear on any one piece of identification. Examples Facebook provides are a driver’s license, student ID, transit pass or library card.

A legitimate purpose for this solicitation is not readily discernible but the nefarious utilities are myriad. At the very least this exposes one to identity theft; but it can also result in personal injury or death.

A photo identification with one’s name and date of birth is sufficient to allow one to be located in real life. It can allow someone to identify and surreptitiously surveil that person at the market; taking their child to daycare; at the movie theater; in church; etc..

Once zealots have the means to positively identify you in real life, you are no longer free to express an opinion for fear of offending a fanatical group which could appear on your lawn; in your workplace; at your child’s school.

With a copy of your transit pass your travels can be tracked through the transit’s system. Your library card can help to establish when, where and how often you visit the library, what you do there and your general geographic travel area; and a student ID narrows the geographic area even more. Additionally it identifies, in real life, friends and family who are not on Facebook but might be used as a means to get to you.

In today’s climate, how difficult would it be to have a premeditated murder written off as a random act of violence or a “hate crime”?

Apparently the impetus for Facebook to target me was my dissemination of factual information demonstrating that Kim Davis is being persecuted and that “case law” is not law under the US Constitution. The denial of service and demand for photo identification came in close proximity to Mike Huckabee attesting to my information by delivering the same message.

I sent an inquiry to Facebook requesting justification for requiring submission of documentation that could make me vulnerable to identity theft and or physical harm. While I awaited a response, I continued to disseminate the information from a friend’s Facebook page. Within hours he too was denied service pending submission of photo identification; which defies all statistical probability of coincidence.

When Facebook, finally responded to my inquiry, it said,

“Thanks for contacting us. It looks like you filled out the wrong form. We’re sorry for the confusion. Please fill out the form below to get back into your account:

https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/445633002198593/?ref=cr

You’ll also need to attach a copy of your ID so we can confirm that this is your authentic name. These documents must show your name, photo, and date of birth. To learn about the types of ID we accept, visit the Help Center:

https://www.facebook.com/help/159096464162185/?ref=cr

Thanks, The Facebook Team”

If Mark Zuckerberg is not personally complicit in this activity he has obviously  ceded power to a malicious, dangerous group of people who have no compunction about abusing that power; and, without any government constraints whatsoever, pose more of a threat to Americans than the NSA ever did.

You may think this scenario incredulous, but before you upload a photo ID to Facebook, you may want to consider whether or not it is worth putting so many people in your life forever at risk just to use  a social media site.

[thepundit456]

OBAMA GETS A MULLIGAN

President Barack Obama has been given the rare opportunity to correct one of the worst mistakes of his presidency; the appointment of Eric Holder to Attorney General of the United States. Holder is clearly disdainful of white Americans as well as the United States Constitution. In his resignation speech, Holder said, “… the Department can and must always be a force for that which is right.”. That statement and Holder’s comportment during the whole of his tenure; selectively enforcing or ignoring the law; are testament to the fact that from the very beginning Holder envisioned the role of attorney general as ACLU attache to the executive branch of the US government; crusading for America’s fringe; sexual deviants and substance abusers. Holder failed to appreciate the distinction between rights and liberties. Refusing to uphold and defend valid laws constitutes dereliction at best, but is more likely malfeasance. It sends the message that if the system is too slow in addressing issues, one is justified in flouting the law. There can be little doubt that had Michael Brown been white, Holder would never have gone to Ferguson, Mo but rather would have left it to the local authorities to investigate with perhaps cursory oversight from the DOJ. This is indicative of Holder’s racist side. The only good aspect of Holder’s appointment is that he came with an exit strategy. He stated that he did not intend to serve for the duration of Obama’a presidency when he accepted the nomination and even though he has long since overstayed his welcome, it is better late than never. Now the President has the opportunity to do something no other president has done; and possibly garner a modicum of legitimacy as a leader. President Obama’s nominee for attorney general should be a nonpartisan person with a solid record of adherence to the rule of law, without regard to popular opinion or political implication. We do not need an attorney general who advocates legalizing marijuana, ignoring Acts of Congress or executing hair-brained schemes for tracking weapons. He or she should advise the president on the law; not ways to circumvent it. The reason that the country is in such chaos is because the law is being degraded while congress and the president constantly vie for political advantage and the courts are allowed to legislate on a case by case basis. Mr President you have a mulligan; please do not blow it.

[thepundit456]

CAN UTAH PREVAIL AT THE SUPREME COURT?

The state of Utah has a law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman which a lower court has deemed to be unconstitutional. Utah is appealing the decision to the United States Supreme Court (scotus); but in all likelihood it will fail. When Paul Clement agreed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) before the scotus he was advised that mounting the same defense as his predecessors would fail. Whether due to arrogance or because he took the case to ensure its failure, he ignored the advice and unsuccessfully made the same argument that had failed before. There is only one viable approach by which Utah can prevail, but it requires Utah to want to succeed enough to take the scotus headon. The power of scotus is founded in the United States Constitution (the Constitution); and articulated in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent revisions/amendments thereto. The Constitution nor the Judiciary Act empower the judiciary to amend, repeal or invalidate any Act of Congress; only congress, in which the Constitution vests “all legislative power” can repeal an Act of Congress. The judiciary does not have constitutional authority to expedite or circumvent the legislative process so that theDefense of Marriage Act is in fact valid unless and until it is repealed by congress. The court is responsible to ensure that state laws are not in violation of federal law. State laws enacted under the authority of the tenth amendment to the Constitution; consistent with an Act of Congress, such as DOMA, are valid in law and fact. Utah must then assert to the court that discrimination, in and of itself, is not wrongful or unconstitutional. In Dale v. Boy Scouts of America the court recognized that discrimination in and of itself does not violate the Constitution. In fact, the Judiciary Act of 1925 gave scotus the power to discriminate relative to appeals it would or would not hear; effectively denying some Americans equal protection without violating the Constitution due to the insulation afforded the scotus by an Act of Congress. More recently, the court recognized discrimination within the Affordable Healthcare Act; which exempts certain employers from compliance based on an arbitrarily established minimum number of employees, did not violate the Constitution. Congress, via the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act articulated bases for discrimination which are wrongful and in violation of federal law; sexual preference, orientation, etc., are not listed among them; and, again, scotus has no constitutional authority to amend, expand, repeal or invalidate any Act of Congress nor the Constitution.. Further, precedent is not law. There is no constitutional provision for repeated, unchecked violations of the Constitution to be sufficient to establish law. Moreover, in Lawrence v Texas, the court demonstrated it has no compunction about overturning itself which means even the court does not consider precedent binding. Records of the Constitution Convention reveal that the founders considered it improper for the courts to participate in the legislative process because it could not objectively rule on its own legislation. It is a violation of the separation of powers for the judiciary to alter federal legislation. If Utah has the heart to mount this fight, we will all win. It will be a win for state sovereignty and it will free us from the oppression of a seemingly omnipotent judiciary that is obviously incapable of exercising restraint from unconstitutionally imposing its views on Americans.

[thepundit456]

SUPREME COURT POISED TO DECLARE DOMINION OVER ITS CREATOR

Article III of the United States Constitution (Constitution) provides for the creation of the United States Supreme Court (scotus). Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to make all necessary and proper laws to effect creation of the scotus. Accordingly, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which contains the following prerequisite for Supreme and district Court service:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Every sitting Supreme Court Justice has violated this oath; and refused to be constrained by the Constitution which created it (scotus). The scotus is now poised to declare dominion over the Constitution which created it by committing its most egregious affront to the Constitution; denying certain constitutional protections in direct contradiction of its own rulings. In CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION the scotus ruled non-profit and for-profit corporations to be persons; entitled to first amendment protection relative to free speech; however, it now contemplates denying those "corporate persons" first amendment protections relative to "free exercise of religion". The Constitution proscribes abridging religious rights; contraceptive rights are a scotus contrivance, on which the Constitution and the Congress are silent. It is clear, in the Citizens United ruling, that the court has substituted its rulings for the Constitution; and that it is not the scotus' intent to interpret the law; it is to write it, hence its references to broad and narrow implications which would be more accurately termed applications. Further, the scotus found it necessary to overturn previous Supreme Court rulings to justify the Citizens United ruling; demonstrating not only the ephemeral nature of a scotus ruling but also the reason the founders excluded the judiciary from the legislative process and vested "all legislative power" in the Congress: the voice of the people. Also with regard to Citizens United, the Constitution places all election matters within the purview of the legislatures of the respective states. Any court hearing a constitutional challenge to election rules should have deferred to Article I of the Constitution and referred the litigants to their respective state legislators. National political party rules are esoteric and binding only upon those who choose to be affiliated with a particular party. The judiciary is only empowered to entertain civil complaints relative to internal party operations. Five hundred thirty five individuals and an alleged "constitutional scholar"; all of which capitulate to the court's domination of the government, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution vests no such power in the judiciary and the only way for the judiciary to become so empowered, by the Constitution, is by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution. If your candidate claims to be "fighting for you, the troops, the American people, etc.", you should ask him or her if that means they are willing to stop the scotus from legislating in violation of the Constitution.

[thepundit456]

ALL WE NEED IS ONE

All we need is one courageous member of congress or congressional candidate to stand up and say that the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to invalidate or repeal an Act of Congress; affirm that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still valid and in full effect; and challenge the other members of congress to join in the affirmation or show, in the Constitution, any amendment thereto, or any Act of Congress where the court is granted that power. In that there is no such constitutional provision, amendment, or Act of Congress, each member's response will tell you more about them than any campaign ad. The members who do not join in the affirmation are the ones who know that scotus does not have the authority but are willing to pretend it does to avoid congressional culpability in the destruction of the marriage paradigm and other extremely contentious legislation. George Bush, unsuccessfully, used a similar tactic when he signed campaign finance reform. He said he felt certain it would not pass "constitutional muster". There is no such thing as constitutional muster. The phrase "constitutional muster" or "judicial review" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, its amendments, or Acts of Congress. Presidents and congress have used this mythological device to defer unpopular decisions to scotus because the Constitution insulates scotus from the people; congress and presidents must stand for reelection. The members who try to assert that scotus has the authority, notwithstanding their inability to show proof, either have never bothered to read their position description (the Constitution) or are not willing to do the job they were hired to do. In either case, these are the people who need to be purged from congress, regardless of party or longevity; because the issue is not marriage, the issue is a fundamental precept of the Constitution; the "rule of law". The Supreme Court of the United States is the number one reason nothing gets done in congress. Congress does not have to negotiate in good faith or cooperate; they simply run to scotus where hubris fosters an exceedingly accommodating environment even though it corrupts the legislative process. The judiciary must be re tethered to the Constitution to curtail its practice of imposing its views on the country without due process of law. Make no mistake; congress, as the voice of the people, is the preeminent power. Congress is the only branch, empowered by the Constitution, to levy taxes, appropriate funds, declare/fund war, ratify treaties, confirm judicial appointments and conduct impeachment and trial proceedings against the executive, judiciary and itself. Many members of congress are quick to cite the "rule of law" to demean religious objections; is there one equally willing to cite it in support of the Constitution of the United States?

[thepundit456]

CAN THE GOP GROW UP IN TIME?

Obvious to even the most casual observer in Tibet is the fact that the United States Congress' interest in the American people is limited to fundraising and mounting attacks against the other party. The Hatfield and McCoy style feud on the hill has nothing to do with serving the public. The impetuous freshman Democrats in the senate, who breached feud protocol, handed the GOP an opportunity to redefine itself as the adult in the room. The question is whether the GOP can accede to the task. Rumblings from the hill clearly indicate the GOP is inclined to childishly retaliate for what it considers to be an egregious transgression; and as it has demonstrated, the effect of a government shut down on the American people nor the effect an inordinate delay in raising the debt ceiling has on the national debt, credit rating and interest rate is sufficient to deter its pursuit of retribution. The question then becomes whether or not the GOP leadership can suppress such juvenile urges and do the country's business. Is the GOP leadership mature enough to realize numbers do not equal control; the GOP controls the House; Democrats control the Senate; which means neither party actually controls anything. Control belongs to the person who controls the narrative with a cogent argument; not hyperbole, mantras or sound bites. Take food stamps for example. It is perfectly reasonable to remove them from the Department of Agriculture; they belong under Health and Human Services. It is also reasonable to require the purpose of the program be clearly defined to facilitate evaluation of the program's effectiveness. There should also be numbers to aid in determining whether the program is meeting or creating a need. Further, there should be a criteria for periodic review of each case and a mechanism for denial of increased benefits necessitated by irresponsible behavior such as additional children while still receiving public assistance. This is a grownup approach so naturally the kids will whine and possibly throw a tantrum; but they cannot oppose implementing controls while claiming to be serious about controlling spending. If they claim such a policy unfairly discriminates against racial minorities, they must explain why the need is race specific and entertain debate on whether the food stamp program should be conflated with a program that more effectively addresses the specific racial problems that create a disproportionate need. Immigration; forget debating whether or not there will be a path to citizenship and instead enumerate the responsibilities of naturalized citizenship. Establish a date certain by which all undocumented persons will have to have come forward to be identified. Each person who entered or remained in this country illegally, before being granted any legal status, must promise not to facilitate anyone else's illegal entry or illegal stay in this country; with the understanding that doing so could result in immediate revocation of their own legal status regardless of the effect such revocation would have on the person's family dynamic. Establish a method of expedited deportation of all found to be in the country illegally after the established date. Establish a date certain, after which a birth mother will be required to be a United States Citizen before citizenship is conferred to children born of her in the United States. In assuming the role of adult and moving these issues forward, the GOP will earn the respect of Americans across party lines. Partisanship cannot always be a paramount consideration. The signatories of the Constitution, in the Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress (http://constitutionus.com/#transmit), wrote, "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Just because something is not uniquely Republican or perceived as conservative does not mean it is not the right course of action. However, more often than not, inaction is the wrong action. Do not let the media, polls or lobbyists tell you what is right; you were elected because you supposedly already know. Can the GOP grow up in time to prevent more harm to Americans and our economy or will they spend the holidays like frat boys;  plotting on ways to get even? Let us hope for the former, because the Democrats are having too much fun behaving like a kid home alone with dad's credit cards; they have not incentive to grow up.

[thepundit456]

INTELLIGENT VOTING

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Americans vote for political party rather than a particular candidate, election after election, and are chagrined when we wind up with a polarized congress time and time again.

This adversarial paradigm gives us campaigns that are all about one candidate/party making the other candidate/party look worse; and an electorate that votes for their party of choice to win, notwithstanding the fact that no matter which party wins, we lose.

No matter which party wins, each party will spend the entire term trying to maintain a distinction between itself and the other party, resulting in year round campaigning, no budget, no immigration reform, no tax reform and government shut downs.

To get a functioning congress, we must elect people who can do the job; are willing to work with whomever to get the job done;  and will focus more on doing the job than whether or not he/she will be reelected.

A candidate's answers to two questions will tell you enough about him/her to make a more informed decision.

1. What is one policy, program, or piece of legislation that your opponent has drafted, advocated or supported that you would be willing to support, and why? The answer will tell you whether or not either candidate can speak intelligently and in detail about a specific view of the other and the degree of difficulty they would have finding common ground.

2. Would you support a United States Constitutional Amendment that would require a unanimous vote in order for the United States Supreme Court to "strike down" an Act of Congress? Many in congress are not aware that the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to strike down or amend any congressional legislation; the court empowered itself, and over time it became a tradition; like marriage.  But, as the court contends that the times dictate abandoning certain traditions, the unfettered  privilege of the court to exercise certain powers should also be abandoned. Since the 2000 presidential election, where the Supreme Court insinuated itself into what was clearly a state matter under the US Constitution, it has demonstrated little to no restraint in abusing the power tacitly granted to it. Consequently, while congress is campaigning and fighting the executive and opposite party, the Supreme court is ruling the country and lower courts are ruling the states. Judicial Review, in some cases, is necessary to prevent a legislature from doing what the Supreme Court is doing; riding roughshod over our constitutional rights. But, if five members of the court see it one way and four see it another, that is hardly compelling enough to override the congress.

Voting for candidates that can clearly articulate an area of common ground with his/her opponent of the opposite party and who will unequivocally register support to constrain Supreme Court power will be a start toward putting sanity back on the hill and, by extension, into our lives.

Once candidates know we are voting for someone, not against someone; for substance,  not campaign ads (negative or positive);  for someone who believes what best serves the country will also serve his/her constituents; for someone who knows and articulates their position, not someone whose position changes with the polls and special interest groups; for someone who would rather lose than pander, maybe the wheeling, dealing, campaigning, fundraising politicians will go try their hand at selling used cars or something; and we can start to put statesmen and stateswomen in the congress. 

[thepundit456]

BOEHNER IS CORRECT

Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA); a convoluted, euphemistic name designed to allow politicians to vote for it without having to acknowledge the injustice it imposes on American businesses,  just to facilitate a sexually deviant subculture's quest for validation of its lifestyle.

As Boehner alluded, if ENDA were to become law every employer who failed to select a male candidate, who presented exaggerated effeminate affectations or one wearing a wig and dress, could be forced to justify his/her selection in a court of law. He/she could also be forced to defend  a low or non-existent lgbt population in his/her employ.

The employer could also be sued for denying a transgender (anatomically intact) male access to female locker/restroom facilities.

Employers could also be forced to ensure that their healthcare plans provide for surgical alteration and therapy for so-called transgender, increasing the overall cost to the employer and other employees. Medicinal and hormonal therapy preceding and following such operations is a lifetime requirement.

ENDA would also deny all Americans the right to reject sexual perversity in deference to convention.  Just as congress allowed the US Supreme court to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), without due process in accordance with the constitution, any religious exceptions included in ENDA will be ephemeral and invalidated by the court once the bill becomes law and is then challenged. This is standard procedure for lgbt. There will be no religious exemption after the first court challenge as long as Kennedy, Kagan and Ginsburg are on the court.

In all likelihood the senate passed the bill for campaign purposes; anticipating it would not pass the house yet they could still get credit for trying. It is narcissistic, myopic and indicative of the pandering attendant to the year round campaigning on the hill and in the White House.

People should realize that all determinations by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on the subject of homosexuality, and other related sexual deviances among adults, are politically negotiated and not the result of any research or empirical evidence. No meaningful research by the APA has been conducted since 1973.

Before John Boehner loses his nerve or tries to trade ENDA for Obamacare, send him a tweet or email of support for his efforts to protect American business and American religious institutions; and remember those senator who quickly and easily passed a sexual perversion bill but could not preempt a government shutdown and still do not have a budget.

https://twitter.com/johnboehner

[thepundit456]

JUDGE MISSED CONSTITUTION CLASS

United States District Court Judge Lee Yeakel was apparently absent the day they taught constitutional law; and then never bothered to familiarize himself with it.

Yeakel recently ruled a portion of an abortion law passed by the Texas legislature as "unconstitutional" but the grounds for his finding are not founded in either the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Texas is a sovereign state and as such is governed by its own constitution. Nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits Texas from banning abortion altogether, if it so chose; any more than it proscribes capital punishment.

Nothing in the United States Constitution empowers any portion of the judiciary, up to and including the United States Supreme Court, to alter or invalidate laws duly passed and signed by a legitimate legislature and executive.

Further, nothing in the Texas Constitution prohibits any part of the abortion law nor violates any provisions or proscriptions of the United States Constitution.

Contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court Rulings do not constitute law nor do they amend the constitution. The United States Constitution vests "all legislative power" in the congress; and prescribes, in Article V thereof, the procedure for its amendment, which does not involve or include the judicial branch of government.

Texas can "choose" to abide by a ruling which has no constitutional basis or it can abide by its constitution; taking the first step toward taking legislative power back from the judiciary and placing it in the legislature, where it belongs.

[thepundit456]

YET ANOTHER MAVERICK BREAKS TETHER

Mary C. Jacobson, New Jersey Superior Court Judge, is the latest judge to slip her tether to the United States Constitution (the Constitution). She joins the ever increasing number of judges who make declarations of unconstitutionality with no discernible constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution vests all legislative power in the congress, period. Therefore it is unconstitutional for any judicial body to "strike down" a law or act of congress; or issue a ruling that, in effect, creates a new law or amends the Constitution; instead of interpreting and applying existing law. A court ruling settles a dispute. Modifying and or invalidating legislation is not a remedy constitutionally available to the judiciary. A Supreme Court of the United States (scotus) ruling instructs lower courts, but only informs the congress and or respective legislatures who can choose to do nothing; because in all cases involving the Ninth and Tenth Amendments scotus must give due deference to the respective state's constitution, unless it can clearly show a direct, discernible conflict with the Constitution. One death or retirement on scotus can yield the complete opposite result; as was the case in Lawrence v Texas where Anthony Kennedy lead the charge to overturn Bowers v Hardwick. The chronology of the Articles of the Constitution is not incidental or irrelevant. Congress is first because it is ostensibly the voice of the people. Neither the executive nor the judicial branch represent the people; only congress. This is why the Constitution vests all legislative power in 535 representatives of the people rather than five unelected individuals who do not represent the people; who are not accountable to the people; and, who can deny the people justice by refusing to hear their case or, as in the case of California's Proposition 8, simply deny the people standing. Moreover, it is impossible for four of nine equally learned jurists, using the same criteria (i.e. the Constitution) to justifiably dissent from a valid conclusion. Either the five or the four are persuaded by some criterion extraneous to the Constitution.  Ascribing legislative force to any conclusion so derived offends the Constitution and the legislative process of a democracy. Mary Jacobson should have known that Vaughn Walker violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges when he did not recuse himself or at least disclose, for the record, his longtime same gender relationship which stood to benefit from his ruling; that his application of a heightened review had no constitutional foundation; and that his ruling denied the people of California the equal protection of the law. She should have known that nothing in the Constitution confers rights on couples; only individuals; and any two unmarried individuals of legal age and opposite gender who are not closely related by blood, can marry regardless of race, religion, national origin, sexual preference or "orientation"; which satisfies the equal protection clause. In all likelihood Mary did know. She just figured that by relying on a scotus ruling each ruling would establish permanence for the other. However, congress is not subordinate to scotus. A functioning congress can limit the effect of any scotus ruling to the instant case; and it has the power to override the executive branch. The notion that the Constitution is a living document is true in the sense that it can be amended; but amended only in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, which implicitly excludes the judiciary from the process. People wheel and deal to be on and chair the senate judiciary committee; and the committee in turn wheels, deals and negotiates with the president about who will be confirmed. It is this process; together with scotus' propensity to rely upon or invalidate (at its discretion) prior scotus rulings, that accounts for the vast number of judges who refuse to be tethered to and constrained by the Constitution. Remember this the next time you vote.

[thepundit456]

ABOVE THE LAW; BENEATH CONTEMPT

We may never know what compelled Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to violate every fundamental, ethical precept of jurisprudence; contort the United States Constitution (the Constitution) beyond recognition, and eviscerate the family paradigm which is the foundation of American culture, in an attempt to confer dignity to a sexually deviant subculture; but clearly narcissism, hubris and contempt for the American people are significant factors. Referring to Americans, who discern the absurdity in attempting to conflate paradigms as disparate same gender sodomites and biologically normal pairings, as bigots portends both his contempt for the predominate culture and lack of constitutional foundation for his opinion.

In United States v Windsor, Kennedy asserted that, “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13-26.”. In point of fact, the term “equal liberty” is not expressed or implied anywhere in the Fifth Amendment; nor does the word equal appear in the Fifth Amendment.  Moreover, in their Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress, the signers of the Constitution wrote, “Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” Consensus on this point, according to the letter, facilitated passage of the Constitution. Clearly they did not intend the word “liberty” to connote unlimited freedom nor did they empower the Supreme Court to enumerate “liberties”. To the contrary, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments defer this function to the states and to the people; which, for example, is why prostitution is legal in only one state; and recreational and so called medicinal substance abuse is legal in a few others.

The Fourteenth Amendment is not a reiteration of the Fifth Amendment; it applies specifically to the states and is therefore not interchangeable with any other amendment despite the Supreme Court’s propensity to do so.

Kennedy makes a claim, in Windsor, that the equal protection clause has been incorporated into the Fifth Amendment making it applicable to the federal government. However, while the court, as a matter of course, has presumed to apply the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments interchangeably, the alleged incorporation has never been made in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Constitution.

Kennedy’s constitutional contortions did not stop there. He also alleged that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold funds (in Windsor, a tax refund) because Windsor’s marriage was legal in New York. However, the Hyde Amendment proscribes federal funding of abortions despite the fact abortions are legal in every state; and, the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act provides for the withholding of federal highway funds from states that fail to raise their minimum drinking age to 21. So in addition to wrongfully conflating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Kennedy disregards obvious, pertinent precedent.

Canon 2A of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states, “ An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.” To say that the integrity and impartiality of a judge in a long term same gender relationship, is not impaired relative to presiding over a contentious case on same gender marriage is like saying Sydney Biddle Barrows could have impartially presided over the Heidi Fleiss trial. Moreover, Judge Vaughn Walker’s narrative is testament to his prejudice.

The Roberts Court ignored this ethical breach and denied the people of California standing; notwithstanding the fact that Walker only allowed them standing, in his court,  so that he could write his lgbt manifesto into the court record.

The people of California followed “due process” as prescribed in their state constitution, but because Walker did not like the fact that they successfully passed an amendment to the California Constitution, he denied them due process, then, the Roberts court did the same.

The Roberts Court and, to a lesser degree, the Rehnquist Court before it, make up the law as they go along. They presume to decide who gets justice and who does not. We supposedly could not leave the people of Iraq or the people of Afghanistan defenseless but the Governors of the state of California could leave their constituents defenseless and the President of the United States can leave the country defenseless and the Roberts court calls it justice. The Roberts court is beneath contempt.

[thepundit456]

READ BEFORE TUMBLR CENSORS IT AGAIN

WHERE THE HELL IS CONGRESS

The Supreme Court of the United States (scotus) has long since abandoned any pretense that its rulings are well founded in the language of the United States Constitution (the Constitution). The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”; notwithstanding, scotus has increasingly usurped the congress. Writing for the Burger court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, Justice Byron White wrote, “Striving to assure itself and the public that announcing rights not readily identifiable in the Constitution’s text involves much more than the imposition of the Justices’ own choice of values on the States and the Federal Government, the Court has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial protection.” The word “protection” is both telling and foreboding in that it portends scotus’ presumption of a mandate not articulated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution charge or empower the judiciary to “protect” anyone or anything other than the integrity of the judiciary; which it has failed to do. Despite its misapprehension of Article III of the Constitution, the Burger scotus correctly found that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy or, by implication, any sexual activity whatever.  In Loving v Virginia scotus acknowledged an implied right to engage in normal sexual intercourse pursuant to the fundamental societal need for procreation; but at the time sodomy was a criminal offense. Not until Lawrence v Texas would it become clear to all but scotus that Bowers was a contrivance. Georgia had declined to prosecute so Bowers sued because the objective was to have scotus declare same gender sodomy a fundamental right. Proponents of the effort resolved that they had simply reached the wrong scotus; Lawrence was the sequel. Even Kennedy, writing for the Rehnquist Court, noted the glaring similarities. In Lawrence, a false report of a weapons disturbance brought police to the residence. A third person was conveniently available to admit police so that Lawrence and Garner could continue having anal sex until witnessed by the police. They were duly charged and convicted in accordance with the laws of Texas, as they had hoped to be. With an advocate in the person of Anthony Kennedy sitting on scotus, proponents felt confident of success; Kennedy did not disappoint. Justice Anthony Kennedy proved to be an invaluable ally to the homosexual subculture by bulldozing its cause through the Rehnquist court and later the Roberts Court; trashing the integrity of the scotus, the family paradigm, the  institution of marriage, and his own credibility in the process. In a recent interview, scotus Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg described the Roberts Court as “activist”. She then went on to identify herself as the leader of the court’s liberal faction. In point of fact, with activists Roberts and Kagan, advocate Kennedy, liberal Ginsburg and Thomas’ inclination toward lackadaisical, the Roberts Court is, by far, more pernicious than mere activism. It is less grounded in the Constitution than any other scotus and seems totally unacquainted with Code of Conduct for United States Judges. (see also Above the Law)

[thepundit456]

WHERE THE HELL IS CONGRESS

The Supreme Court of the United States (scotus) has long since abandoned any pretense that its rulings are well founded in the language of the United States Constitution (the Constitution). The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be...

[thepundit456]

SCOTUS: ACTIVISTS AND ADVOCATES

WHERE THE HELL IS CONGRESS

The Supreme Court of the United States (scotus) has long since abandoned any pretense that its rulings are well founded in the language of the United States Constitution (the Constitution). The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”; notwithstanding, scotus has increasingly usurped the congress. Writing for the Burger court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, Justice Byron White wrote, “Striving to assure itself and the public that announcing rights not readily identifiable in the Constitution's text involves much more than the imposition of the Justices' own choice of values on the States and the Federal Government, the Court has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial protection.” The word “protection” is both telling and foreboding in that it portends scotus’ presumption of a mandate not articulated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution charge or empower the judiciary to “protect” anyone or anything other than the integrity of the judiciary; which it has failed to do. Despite its misapprehension of Article III of the Constitution, the Burger scotus correctly found that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy or, by implication, any sexual activity whatever.  In Loving v Virginia scotus acknowledged an implied right to engage in normal sexual intercourse pursuant to the fundamental societal need for procreation; but at the time sodomy was a criminal offense. Not until Lawrence v Texas would it become clear to all but scotus that Bowers was a contrivance. Georgia had declined to prosecute so Bowers sued because the objective was to have scotus declare same gender sodomy a fundamental right. Proponents of the effort resolved that they had simply reached the wrong scotus; Lawrence was the sequel. Even Kennedy, writing for the Rehnquist Court, noted the glaring similarities. In Lawrence, a false report of a weapons disturbance brought police to the residence. A third person was conveniently available to admit police so that Lawrence and Garner could continue having anal sex until witnessed by the police. They were duly charged and convicted in accordance with the laws of Texas, as they had hoped to be. With an advocate in the person of Anthony Kennedy sitting on scotus, proponents felt confident of success; Kennedy did not disappoint. Justice Anthony Kennedy proved to be an invaluable ally to the homosexual subculture by bulldozing its cause through the Rehnquist court and later the Roberts Court; trashing the integrity of the scotus, the family paradigm, the  institution of marriage, and his own credibility in the process. In a recent interview, scotus Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg described the Roberts Court as “activist”. She then went on to identify herself as the leader of the court’s liberal faction. In point of fact, with activists Roberts and Kagan, advocate Kennedy, liberal Ginsburg and Thomas’ inclination toward lackadaisical, the Roberts Court is, by far, more pernicious than mere activism. It is less grounded in the Constitution than any other scotus and seems totally unacquainted with Code of Conduct for United States Judges. (Next blog Kennedy's Machinations, showing how he manipulated the system for lgbt)

[thepundit456]

AMERICA'S WORST NIGHTMARE

The drafters of the United States Constitution (the Constitution) determined that a democratically ordered society would require a leader, a legislature and a judiciary. They also knew that these powers could not be vested in one entity, nor could one entity have the power to usurp another.

They therefore created a trilateral paradigm consisting of an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The legislative branch was then divided into two houses which would have to work cooperatively to enact legislation.

The executive (president) could not force the legislature (congress) to do anything and two thirds of the congress would have to agree in order to override a presidential objection to proposed legislation.

The judicial branch, however, was a different story. The president and congress had to work together on appointments to the Supreme Court, after which the court became autonomous. It was presumed that the president would take great care in his nominations and that the senate would be equally circumspect during confirmation hearings; so as to populate the court with learned jurists of integrity; thereby establishing the legitimacy and, by extension, power of the court.

Justice Byron White, writing for the Burger Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK wrote, in part, “The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Rehnquist Court in Lawrence v Texas, clearly demonstrated the validity of White’s assertion; while establishing himself as an advocate, vice jurist, in the campaign to legitimize deviant sexual behavior; specifically same gender sodomy.

Kennedy found the Roberts Court receptive to advocacy and without compunction relative to “judge-made constitutional law”. Together they made their sojourn into activism in the 2000 presidential election; 2010 in Citizens United; and most recently and egregiously in 2013 when they violated the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution by eviscerating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and upholding the disenfranchisement of the voters of California.

The latter action established the Roberts Court as America’s worst nightmare; an entity that wields unlimited power with impunity and without compunction. The only branch of government not preoccupied with reelection exploiting the opportunity provided by those who are too preoccupied posturing to restore balance to the system.

The Roberts Court is not the first to render rulings having only a tenuous relationship with the Constitution, but it is the first to pervert the cultural narrative beyond efficacy.