Friday, December 30, 2016

Obama's Last Bill Just Ended America (Donald Can't Stop It)!

Technically I think the SCOTUS killed America when they destroyed the rule of law, but this helps to nail down the coffin lid.

3 comments:

Terry Morris said...

America was founded on liberalism, and liberalism is alive and well. We now live under what Lawrence Auster called America 2.0, as opposed to America 1.0. But liberalism has always been the driving force behind America, and it was inevitable we would one day arrive exactly where we're at, therefore. It won't get any better until we repudiate liberalism in ALL its deceptive forms.

Concerning the Bill of Rights:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights ... would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing.

What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.

And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

-Hamilton, Federalist no. 84

But in any case, yeah, in the land of lies every day is opposite day.:

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/?s=In+the+land+of+lies+every+day+is+opposite+day&submit=Search

Terry Morris said...

Oops! Let's see if I can successfully add a link that works:

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/in-the-land-of-lies-every-day-is-opposite-day/

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Morris!
It is good to hear from you. Bearing in mind that were I writing as I should be, instead of merely sharing other people's work, I should probably hear more from you.
I hope the new year finds you and your happy and healthy with prospects of remaining so for the forseeable future.

The older I become, the more I see convenience as a pathway towards destruction. And so our Bill of Rights may be viewed - as a convenience which relieves the ordinary citizen from the burden of thinking about self evident and unalienable rights and from whence they spring. Which I am sure causes our legislators a great deal of convenience as well - never having to explain themselves, or the "logic" by which they cast their votes on our behalf, in terms of duty to or recognition of the Creator who granted such rights.

This, of course, also has the effect of preventing people from confidently declaring what other rights may be said to be self evident and unalienable, by confining our thoughts to those in the conveniently provided list. And, of course, without having such other rights enumerated, we cannot possibly expect the SCOTUS to uphold our exercise of them. (Especially in these days when the SCOTUS has destroyed the rule of law - and the nation - entirely with their meddling about in the dictionary.) And thus our destruction is realized.

I loved the "Land of Lies" post and I thank you for sharing it. It gives me reassurance that the rest of the world has not gone mad. Or, at least, that perhaps I am not so mad as the purveyors of the current narrative would have me believe.