The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

About Trump's judicial appointments

Trump Says He Will Delegate Judicial Selection To The Conservative Federalist Society

In my own view, the most honest reading of the constitution makes Social Security and Medicare both unconstitutional, along with paper money, the Air Force, the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Education, the EPA, and everything anybody has ever based on the incorporation doctrine, the fictitious right to privacy, and the utterly mad liberal readings of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

And, by the way, the First Amendment, which binds only the federal Congress, only protects actual speech and publications on paper, and though it protects human sacrifice from Congressional interference, it does not prohibit the Congress compelling people to do what their religion forbids.

The Second Amendment conjoins a demonstrable falsehood about the role of militias with a guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms against federal infringement.

Or perhaps it conjoins a conditional guarantee of that right with the false assertion of its condition, leaving the guarantee an undetached consequent, I can never quite be sure which.

Interception of the mails is a search only at a stretch, and is not a seizure, nor are warrants required or indeed is anything said about electronic communications, surveillance, or eavesdropping.

The so called "tax and spend" clause is otherwise a mere preamble and confers no powers but those elsewhere specified in the constitution.

Congress is not empowered to do whatever it wants in pursuit of either the general welfare or the common defense of the states, nor to do whatever might be necessary and proper in pursuit of those objects.

Judicial review is a fraud and the supremacy clause is a mere assertion and a naked command aimed at state courts that in no way grants power to anyone or anything, and so not a power of enforcement to the federal courts, the Supreme Court, or anyone else.

No state any longer has a militia, and the National Guard is not a militia.

No one can bind their choices, and the Electors can each and all vote in utter freedom for whomever they wish for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States.

The power to make and the manner of making treaties is set out clearly enough, but no power to abrogate them is even contemplated.

The power to make people executive department heads and officers of the federal government is created and the manner of doing it specified, but apart from impeachment the document does not contemplate their resignations or any particular limit on their tenure in office.

It is definitely not provided that they serve at the pleasure of the president nor that they must resign when his term of office ends.

And, as Justice Roberts has pointed out to us, Obamacare is constitutional only if - I do not say "if" - we consider federal compulsion of individual purchase of private insurance a tax, which is ludicrous.

What a ridiculous, inadequate, and antiquated artifact of the 18th Century that document is.

But why quibble, eh?

So far, so good.

Anyway, on the whole, nobody is interested in a constitutional challenge to any of that but Social Security and Medicare - and, right, Obamacare.

And so, being a geezer who does not want to be left for dead and feeling, yes, entitled, given I have paid the relevant taxes all my working life, I oppose putting judges on the bench who might rule, eventually, against the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare.

And though the feckless and totally unreliable Duce has pledged to unshakably defend Social Security and Medicare when seeking the votes of the elderly, this pledge concerning his judicial appointments greatly endangers both.

Just saying.

Oh, the constitution does guarantee a speedy trial, but good luck getting one.

Update.

My view of I, 8, 1 has changed in a significant fashion.

I think what it actually says is quite breathtaking, and that taking it at its word would have been contrary to the intentions of some, if not all, of the Framers and their generation.

No comments:

Post a Comment