Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous, Part 1: Texas v. White (1869)

It might seem that a Supreme Court case that happened more than a hundred fifty years ago is not what most people would consider to be a contemporary issue. You, dear reader, may even be inclined to ask, “Why is this Ashton character digging up such an old issue?

For some reason the good People of the United States of America have decided that the decisions of the Supreme Court are the forever binding supreme law of the land; forever and always and in all possible things. You have the choice to trust me when I say that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any five, or six, or seven, or eight, or nine people—however the vote may be—to decide what ultimate and binding legal truth is for everybody regarding everything, over and above the will of the American People as expressed by their president and elected representatives in Congress. For them to do so would make this country an oligarchy. Should you choose to not trust me in this you could always read it for yourself and point out the clause that proves me wrong.

It is not the point of this article to debate or discuss the subject matter of the previous paragraph. The point of this article, and the entire Supreme Court Series, is to show that the Supreme Court, in deciding what is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional,” is not using the Constitution to come to the conclusion prescribed by the supreme law of the land, which they are sworn by oath to uphold. Instead what they are doing is deciding what ruling they want to have forever encoded as law, as determined by them, then looking to other documents that sound sort of constitutional which happen to say something similar to what they think should be the supreme and binding law, then calling that constitutional.

Thus, an issue of a hundred and fifty years ago, one involving the right of the States to secede from the Union, is an issue of today in its effect. No longer, because of this ruling, does a State have the right to say, “The federal government has gone completely daft, is running out of control off a cliff and we refuse to blindly and blithely go over the cliff with them. We’re out of here!” Today, because of this decision, any State choosing to exercise the same principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence would be looked at as treasonous criminals.

And that decision, Texas v. White (1869), was not made according to anything in the Constitution or any constitutional law.

So, the groundwork, from big to small:

1) Article Six, Clause Two; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….”

2) Article Three Section Two; “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution….”

3) The Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office; “I, _________, 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 upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

With these two laws and oath we can see that the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. It is not bound by anything other than the Constitution. By definition of the word “constitutional” with the “-al” suffix is meant “having to do with the Constitution.”

I would not think that one would have to explain that for something to be constitutional it would have to be something actually contained in the Constitution as a written and authorized power; it seems a rather obvious and common sense thing—but there it is.

The case of Texas v. White is hundreds of pages of boring and dry reading that contains nothing but senseless gibberish, which I would not do you the injustice of forcing you through. What you need to know is it involves money that either should be paid if secession is unconstitutional or not be paid if secession was constitutional.

The Chief Justice of the Court at the time was Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln during the “Civil War.” Also serving on the court was Justice David Davis whose previous claim to fame was as Lincoln’s campaign manager.

The Court returned a decision 5-3 that it was unconstitutional for a State to secede from the Union.

Big surprise!

The United States Supreme Court, composed mostly of people who were from Northern States, led by the guy who funded Lincoln’s war against the seceding States which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of American People, declared proudly that he had every right to do so because those filthy Confederates were behaving unconstitutionally.

In other news gravity still works.

Now just for fun please, I invite you to imagine that it is the year 1868, just at the beginning of the Reconstruction Era, barely three years after the end of the so-called “Civil War.” The Union soldiers are still in forceful occupation of the former Confederate States. The ashes of destruction waged against the People of the Southern States have barely cooled. Poverty and starvation is rampant in the American South. The Confederate soldiers have all been stood down and their rifles have barely just begun to rust in the dirt.

Suppose on that day that the Supreme Court Chief Justice—who served in Lincoln’s cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury and funded the “Civil War,” along with the other guy who was Lincoln’s campaign manager—would have decided that it was completely constitutional for the Confederate States to secede from the Union. The vote shifts from 5-3 unconstitutional for the States to secede and thus Lincoln was right in killing the filthy Confederates; to 5-3 it was completely constitutional for the Confederate States to secede, the Confederates did absolutely nothing wrong in leaving the Union and thus Lincoln was unjustly waging war on the South and behaving as any psychotic tyrant.

Okay kiddies! Can you say, “conflict of interest”? Sure, I knew you could.

They would have been lynched. Riots in the streets. The former Confederate States would have seceded, again, the very next day, and there would have been nothing the Union could have legally done about it. And that’s what they were really deciding.

Chief Justice Chase was faced with a problem. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says a State can’t leave the Union. Nothing. Either trust me or look for yourself. It just isn’t there. So he had to find—because his actual physical life probably depended on it, after all, they did just put a bullet through the president’s head—something else that he could sell and convince the People that he was drawing from an actual legally binding text while making a convincing argument that it was the Constitution he was talking about.

What he settled on was this; “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’”

This is the only important paragraph in the whole decision, which numbers in hundreds of pages. Look what it says there. The Articles of Confederation is where he got the justification for his argument; not the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation “were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country.” And from this >>>inadequate document<<< he takes two words. (Two effing words!!!) And by those two effing words from an obsolete and no longer legally binding document he makes the argument that it is unconstitutional for a State to exercise the simple freedom of leaving the country when remaining presents a danger to them.

Two words written years before the Constitution changed the whole course of American History and probably saved the lives of two Supreme Court justices.

The Supreme Court, to begin with, has no expressed constitutional authority to make such a decision. The 10^th Amendment applies. And to make a “constitutional” decision from something outside of the Constitution itself cannot be considered to be legally binding or Constitutional.

More than all of that this is why the Supreme Court does not and should not ever have the power that the American People assume that they have.

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part One

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Two

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Three

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Four

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Five

The Premise of the Enemy: Part 2

Why is political conservatism (small and limited government) losing ground against political liberalism? Why do they lose battle after battle in this war to the liberals? And it is a war. A war that is equally as old as the concepts of things like money, property and power.

It is widely considered to be immoral for someone to use the threat of force to take money from someone who is unwilling to give it. The word for when this happens is theft. That is what it means. It is generally frowned upon in civilized society.

How many votes does it take to make it moral for me to take your money from you against your will and use it for whatever I want? This question is something that you should answer for yourself.

When the Sixteenth Amendment was debated in the Senate the arguments for it were obvious. "We need the money for 'the good of the country.'" That's kind of ambiguous and arbitrary at best. Were I a prideful cynic I would say that argument reeks of them wanting the money to buy their own power, yachts, mansions, Gulfstream luxury jets, etc.. But I digress.

The arguments against it were purely moral and constitutional. I quote from Article One, Section Nine, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other more simple words, it is illegal at the constitutional level for the federal government to just take your money.

In addition to that there is the Tenth Amendment (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,) which means it is absolutely illegal for the federal government to give itself more power. Any amendment past that point, initiated by the federal government, cannot include a statement that says anything like, "The Congress shall have the power to..." and be considered a valid amendment unless the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is repealed.

The Sixteenth Amendment (The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,) is directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment. In other words the federal government has taken upon itself, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, the power take your money for whatever reason they want.

On top of the above listed constitutional reasons is the simple principle that it is immoral and criminal to use the threat of force to take money from people and use it for whatever the hell you want. It is just as immoral and illegal—should the Constitution actually be followed—for a government to take it as it is for a gangster to take it. The only difference between the two is the number of votes.

So let's look at what is accepted in society today and compare it to the argument for the Sixteenth Amendment.

The liberal argument is that it is okay for the government to take your money and use it how they want. The conservative argument is that it is immoral for anybody to take your money, against your individual consent, regardless of the supposed reasons for doing so.

Today it is generally accepted by the Republican Party that the Sixteenth Amendment is valid, even setting aside totally the irregularities in its ratification. It is accepted by the so-called conservative party that they, just like the Democrats and other forms of liberals, can take your money without your direct consent and spend it any way they damn well want to. The supporters of the Republican Party approve of this theft and unconstitutional expenditure as well as supporting the Sixteenth Amendment which supposedly makes it all "legal" for them to do so. Granted, it is less that they take on the "conservative" side but the principle is the same because they claim that they are "letting you keep more of your money."

In other words the "conservatives" have accepted the premise of the enemy.

General Eisenhower would and should have been fired if he had accepted in WW2 the premise that the Aryan race should rule the world, except it should be the United States in charge of the fascist world government instead of Germany. Had Ike done something like that he would have rightfully been considered a traitor to his country and the world.

Analogous to that, anybody who calls themselves conservative and supports unlimited government taxing and spending, as per the Sixteenth Amendment, or even simply recognizes that the idea is in any way valid, has gone over to the other side by accepting the premise of the enemy.

How can you ever win by granting the opponent their basic premise?

You can't!

The absolute best you could hope for is two gangs of liberals who support their own and oppose the other. In modern political terms this would be Democrats versus Republicans. Why not Spy versus Spy? It makes as much sense, is almost as productive and a lot more amusing.

Forgotten completely between these two unworthy and generally despicable gangs of government thugs is the idea that your money and property are your own and nobody should have more of a right to any of it other than you.

The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The Premise of the Enemy: Part Four

The Premise of the Enemy

(Note: This was originally written prior to the 2020 election. There are some basic principles which still apply.)

I've been looking over the highlights of the second presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden from the other night and I just can't stand the way these guys were falling over each other to compare themselves to Lincoln. And in doing so they both fell headlong into one of my pet peeves.

The reputation of Lincoln is all built on false premises.

Let's talk about well documented historical facts.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."—Lincoln, 9/18/1858

This quote of Lincoln's is not the only damning words of his out there. Quotes like this are far more frequent than most of the People of the United States currently know or are willing to believe. 

The simple fact is that Lincoln was a racist. Lincoln did nothing for the sake of black people in and of themselves. He only "helped" them when it also suited his own political gain. He did not respect them. He used them for the sake of gaining or preserving his own power; after which he wanted them packed back into ships and sent off to someplace else other than here so his constituents could have the jobs. Yes, I can support this supposition in his own words.

The war was not over slavery. The war was about tax money from the Confederate States and every shot of it fired by a Union soldier in the South was a gross violation of the Constitution.

The United States was formed in freedom by independent and sovereign States which were all stand alone countries in their own right. They joined of their own free will and remained together in peace by their own free will under the Constitution right up to the point where Lincoln ordered his troops to kill them if they didn't remain. This is not a preservation of the United States, in peace, under the Constitution. It's plain and simple tyranny in a style that I'm sure would have been admired by Joseph Stalin. Lincoln's position is backed up by his receiving support for his reelection in correspondence from Karl Marx. The idea that States couldn't leave the Union was also agreed with by Hitler in his book "Mein Kampf."

The great lie is that Lincoln somehow was the savior of black people and that he preserved the Union. Because of this understanding of the history of Lincoln it is accepted that the Constitutional limits on the federal government can and should be violated with impunity. After all...Lincoln did it...and see how great he was? This premise, the unquestioning belief in Lincoln and the "greatness" of his unconstitutional actions, that his gross violation of constitutional law somehow preserved the Union in freedom, is what is dividing and destroying the country today.

So what does it really mean when Trump says he's done more for black people than anybody since Lincoln? The current state of our country is exactly what you get when you accept the premise of the enemy. The president of the United States has no constitutional duty or power to do anything about black people—or anybody else of any segmented voting block. To do so is outright corruption, by definition.

Donald Trump's regard for the Constitutional limits on the federal government are suspect at best. He only mentioned the Constitution once during the whole second debate. Biden didn't mention it at all. The moderator only mentioned it twice. I find that odd in a most disgusting way given that this is the job position they are applying for: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The only redeeming value of President Trump over Biden, from my perspective at least, is that President Trump does understand the economy and the Democrats are much worse for both the economy and the Constitution.

I do realize that for many people, on the right, this is a good enough reason to support President Trump. But know this, and make no mistake about it, when you vote for either of these guys you are not doing so in support of the actual meaning of the Constitution.

And if you keep buying into the premise of the enemy you are sooner or later going to lose no matter how many votes you get.


The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The Premise of the Enemy: Part Four

Political Science vs. Political Philosophy

I've been thinking along these lines for quite a while but have never posted anything about it, so here goes.

You know what's wrong with the country today?

Two words; Political Science. That's what's wrong.

Now there are a lot of varying definitions of Political Science, most of them very technical and difficult to understand. For me, when something starts becoming simple to understand I know I'm on the right path, so for the sake of simplicity, Political Science is the subject of how to defeat the opposition. It, as a subject, doesn't matter or care what the opposition is, or if they are ethically right or wrong. It's all about how to win for yourself and make the other guys lose. It is the achievement of power for yourself at the expense of the other side. 

That is the only consideration.

Now there is this other political study which is more in the traditions of philosophy, called of course, Political Philosophy, which is a study of why someone should, or shouldn't be defeated. This, simply put, is oriented more to discovering the nature of freedom versus government and the advantages of one over the other.

I've come to the realization that as far as politics go, I'd rather be a philosopher than a scientist. The Political Scientist is always about the party they belong to. Truth doesn't matter, as long as their guy wins. Principles don't matter as long as you have your own personal faith that "your guy" is the right guy for everybody and it doesn't matter why; he just is.

Obama, for example, according to political science, can be the best president ever and say immigration is out of control and needs to be fixed but when Trump says the same thing he is a Fascist. Obama can be the worst president ever because he's for tariffs but when Trump does them he's the best president and a brilliant political strategist.

See? There are a hundred issues where I've seen the same thing has happened. The video clips of politicians flip-flopping according to popularity are all over the internet. Truth doesn't matter as long as your guy wins.

That's Political Science.

When a person is thinking along the lines of Political Philosophy, tariffs are either good or bad and they stay that way no matter who the president is. Border control is either good or bad and remains so no matter who the president is. An out of control and unconstitutional budget is either good or bad and remains so, no matter which political party occupies the White House. Someone thinking along the lines of political philosophy would dump their support for a candidate in a second if he proved himself to be inconsistent.

In Political Philosophy it is the truth that matters, not the politician. For some reason the truth is important to me.

Two Problems with “General Welfare”

Let us assume for the sake of discussion that you are the parent of a three year old boy.

One day you, as a dutiful and attentive parent, sit your son down and tell him one of the most important rules he needs to follow is, “Don’t wizzle-wig the ruddy rods!” He smiles back at you because he’s a good kid and says, “Okay.”

So one day a couple of weeks later you come back to your home to find it surrounded by the fire department, burned to the ground. Fortunately your son and spouse made it out unharmed before it blew up. Yay!

Inquisitively you ask the fire chief what happened. More likely you ask him what the hell happened, or some other expletive, but this blog is meant for the young as well as the old, so I won’t fill it with my ability to talk like the salty old sailor that I am. You get the point. You ask what happened.

He looks at you as if he were a bit miffed and says, “Didn’t you explain to your son how important it is to not wizzle-wig the ruddy rods? What the (expletive) kind of parent are you?”

You look at your son and ask him, “Did you wizzle-wig the ruddy rods?”

“No,” he says slowly. After a bit of a pause he says, “what’s a ruddy rod? And what’s wizzle-wig?” After all, he’s a really bright kid and catches on to the problem before you did.

Let us say, for the sake of conversation, that “ruddy rod” means “gas valve on the stove” and “wizzle-wig” is a verb meaning “to play with.”

The problem isn’t that the house burned down. The problem isn’t that your son was playing with the gas valves. The problem isn’t that you are a bad parent. The problem is that you failed to define the terms of a rule and thus rendered it unfollowable. The house blowing up wouldn’t have happened if you’d defined the terms of the rules.

So we arrive at one of the most very basic principles of law, which I’m hoping you’ll forgive my paraphrase; all laws and rules, in order to be functional or enforceable, must have their terms defined and understood if they are to be followed.

If you ever find the need to read a law you will find that there is no lack of definitions. You may or may not understand them and have to look up long chains of words before the meaning is clear to you, but you can be assured any judge or lawyer—at least a good one—does understand the terms of the written laws as they apply to them. It could be some law as minor as a parking ticket or as major as first degree murder. You can be certain to find the legal definition of a parking space or first degree murder in the laws that are supposed to deal with them.

So here I am one day talking about the funding for National Public Radio (NPR) with one of my relatives and her friend. I make the point that nowhere in the Constitution is there federal authority to take money from taxpayers for the funding of such an organization. Yes, big surprise, National Public Radio is not in the Constitution.

The response I got was, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

It’s a good thing, I guess, that I managed to persuade a liberal to actually quote the Constitution. Who’d have seen that one coming? Right? I was so shocked this clause was known by this person that for a while I didn’t know how to respond.

So here’s the second problem. Apparently, at a cursory glance, the liberal got it right. But I’m not the kind of guy who just sits there and takes it for granted that just because someone answered a question it is the right answer. After all, teachers tell us all the time when we’ve got our answers wrong. Don’t they?

You wouldn't see the real nature of the problem here unless you've actually read and understood the Constitution—particularly Article One, Section Eight—that the statement was out of context. He only took a fragment of the sentence as important, and assigned his own meaning to it, which had nothing to do with the original meaning within the full Section from which it was taken. So here’s another basic principle; context matters to people who want accurate communication and truth. You may—or may not be—surprised as to how often this tactic is used in politics.

Now if you combine the absence of understanding of the above two principles, with the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution, you would immediately understand how the federal government and its spending is so far out of control.

Here’s problem number one. This statement is out of context; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

It is a small fragment of a sentence. Its meaning is entirely different in the context of the whole sentence, which is this:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Yes! That is a single sentence. Notice the period at the end of it. Notice that there are no other periods throughout it. And I assure you, that is the way it is punctuated on the original document. Granted, today’s grammar school teachers would mark the student issuing such a sentence as a run on but in those days this kind of writing was typical. You will find each of these clauses is separated into stand alone lines to make this single sentence easier to break down and understand. That only gives the impression, falsely in my opinion, that each clause stands alone in meaning and application.

There are some clauses of this sentence that can stand alone without the meaning changing, this is true, but there are some that cannot be extracted without shifting the meaning or changing it entirely. Remember the first of my two principles above; all laws and rules, in order to be functional or enforceable, must have their terms defined and understood if they are to be followed.

Look very closely at this; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

What does the term “general Welfare” mean in this clause? You can look at it and think you know what it means because of your tendency, a natural human tendency, to fill in the gaps of things you don’t know with the things you do know. We all do it unconsciously and automatically, sometimes never realizing when we do it. It’s an assumption based on your considerations of what you think would be good for society, but it is not written law.

Now here’s the issue here. What exactly is meant by “general Welfare” is not in this fragment of the sentence.

“General Welfare,” taking only this sentence fragment, could mean anything. You might think it means “Single Payer Public Heathcare.” You might think it means “Social Security.” You might think it means “treadmills for shrimp.” You might think it means “feeding the poor.” You might think it means “National Endowment for the Arts.” You might think it means any number of a million-billion things you can think of that would be good for society. And you might be right that most of them are good for society if they were to be done outside of the authority and force of the federal government and its big guns.

It’s good to take care of people’s health. It’s good to take care of the old and disabled. It’s good to do scientific research. It’s good to feed the poor. It’s good to support artists—and I say this because I am one, please send me your money!

You are a good person for caring about such things and thinking they are good. And to that extent I agree with you.

But for President Andrew Jackson the “general Welfare of the United States” meant the Trail of Tears leading to the deaths of thousands of Indians for the sake of land and gold. For President Grant the “general Welfare of the United States” meant the initiation of a war, that some might call genocide, against the Indian tribes who were in the way of the Transcontinental Railroad. For President Franklin D. Roosevelt the “general Welfare of the United States” meant the rounding up 120,000 Japanese American citizens, confiscation of their property, and placing them in “internment camps,” which were little better than the mass prison camps in the horror stories of other countries.

For the sake of the undefined “general Welfare of the United States” President Lincoln waged a very clearly unconstitutional war, which was the bloodiest in American history, and suspended the right of habeas corpus by the wrongful imprisonment of tens of thousands of Americans who spoke out against him, supposedly for the purpose of eradicating slavery. Never mind the fact that if that’s what he wanted to do he should have found a peaceful way to do it without killing more people than we could count! So for the “general Welfare of the United States” the most recent guess on the “Civil War” is 750,000 dead Americans, whether you agree with the cause and actions or not. And that number is only the military related deaths. It does not count the deaths of the people, slaves or not, civilians, who died from disease, exposure and starvation as a result of actions like Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s total destruction of the Shenandoah Valley. For the “general Welfare of the United States” Abraham Lincoln gained a record for the destruction of life that exceeds the deaths caused by Idi Amin!

Anything, anything, anything, ANYTHING!!! can be justified under the terms of undefined “general Welfare.” If you can imagine it, it can be done. I’ve only given four examples from American history above, but there are more. Included in the above four examples are a complete denial of human rights and liberties of people who are both American citizens as well as those who aren’t. The Bill of Rights is meaningless when confronted by the undefined concept of “general Welfare.” You, your life, your rights, the rights of your family, all demonstrably mean nothing to the self-righteous causes of the masses of people under the specious reasoning of “general Welfare” when it has no definition other than what you imagine it to be.

The “general Welfare” of any country throughout the world, throughout history, has always been the openly stated cause of brutal tyrants. Even Hitler thought he was doing what was right for the “general Welfare” of the German people and the race of humanity throughout the world. He said so, frequently and in his own words.

A lot of people talk to me about this or that “interpretation” of the Constitution. I find it better to simply read what’s there without putting my own thinking or bent of nature into it. There are things it says I wish weren’t there. There are things I wish it did say that it doesn’t. The fact is it says what it says. It doesn’t need “interpretation.” You just have to read what’s there and understand it.

 “Interpretation” to me, as person who would rather know the truth of a subject, seems an awful lot like the simple method of liars. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull. Never have I found a person who cries about constitutional interpretation taking in the full context with accurate definitions. Always what I do find is that they’ve inserted some program, benefit, or entitlement; they themselves have a vested interest in, which isn’t there.

It’s just too bad the General Welfare clause doesn’t have something that defines exactly what the founders meant by it, so we don’t have to interpret it. You know, something that acts as a guideline for what general welfare means and keeps the federal government acting within its clearly defined authority. Isn’t it?

Here’s a hint for you then. I’ll make it subtle so you’ll be forced to think about it with all possible erudition.

READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE!!!

Particularly the part of it that says, "And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Maybe read the Tenth Amendment while you're at it.

It may or may not represent the government you would wish and hope for in the wildest of your dreams. But it does represent the government that we are supposed to but don't have.

And by all means tell your son not to play with the gas valves on the stove!

Theft and Civilized Society

Many cultures of people across the face of the Earth have rules which generally apply to the keeping of a civilized society. In Christianity there is the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” If you are a Scientologist you have in the thirteenth Way to Happiness, “Do not Steal.” One of the disciplines of Hinduism is, “No desire to possess or steal.”

While there are many other religions that have incorporated within them this idea that it is wrongful to steal the possessions or money of other people it is not just a religious concept. Almost every country, state, province, municipality, or any other division of government with a functional legal system across the face of the Earth has very thoroughly incorporated within it laws designed toward the prevention of theft.

It is a logical underlying principle of all laws, secular or non-secular, that in order to be enforced the terms of the laws must be defined and understandable by those who are expected to follow or enforce them. I could at this time write some fifty or sixty thousand words of examples of this directly taken from many various legal codes throughout the world but that would be unnecessarily pointless and complicated. So in my own typical writing style I will create an example of what I’m talking about that everybody can understand. That way in a layman’s philosophical terms we will all know what we are talking about.

Let’s say I need some money and I know you have some. In knowing you have some money I decide to walk up to you and politely ask you for it. In your kindness and generosity you ask me what my need for it is and upon agreeing with my need you give your money to me. Is this theft? No. Of course not.

Okay, now let us assume you again have money and in the keenness of your perception you see my need without asking and again with your kindness and generosity you just decide to walk up and give it to me. Is this theft? Again, no. Of course not.

Now let’s suppose I need money and I know you have some. I, in my need, walk up to you, punch you in the face, knock you down, kick you and take your money. Is this theft? Yes. Of course it is.

Again let us suppose I need money and I know you have some. I, in my need, walk up to you, and simply threaten to knock you down, kick you, and take your money. And you believe I could accomplish the task, so rather than having me beat on you, you give me the money. Is this theft? Yes. Of course it is.

And just one more time, let’s suppose I, in my need for your money, get a bunch of people to surround you, threaten you somehow, and take your money, instead of just doing it myself? It this theft? Yes. Obviously.

So from these five examples we can derive for ourselves, for the sake of discussion in the philosophic sense, what theft actually is. Theft, simply put, is the transfer of money or property from a donor to a recipient, under force or threat of force, against the will of the donor. That last part is bold in italics because it is the most important part of the sentence. In determining theft it is the will of the donor of the property or money that decides the issue. You cannot steal something which is willingly given. And you cannot call something charity that is taken against the will of the donor.

Just for the fun of it let’s see if there is a way around this “will of the donor” thing where we could possibly fool ourselves into believing we aren’t just taking someone else’s money.

Let us suppose I need money and I know you have some. I, in my need, walk up to you, abduct you, and lock you in a small room until you decide to give me the money I want. Does this get me around the idea that I’m taking your money against the will of the donor? Nope.

How about in the same scenario as the latest above I simply threaten to abduct you and hold you in a small room until you, in the belief I could do it, give me the money I want. Nope. It’s still theft.

Hmmm … What if I am not taking the money for myself? What if I need the money for someone else? What if my father has been sick and I need the money to pay for his medical bills, so I come over to your house with my gun and threaten you until you give me the money. Certainly because compassion for the needs of my father is involved, you would not consider it theft. But nope. It still is, by definition above, theft.

Well what if I, before going over to your house to threaten you and take your money to pay for my father’s medical bills, go around to every neighbor on the block, explain the situation and take a vote as to whether I should go to your house and take your money? You vote no and everybody else votes yes. I show up at your door, threaten you with my gun and take your money. Am I still taking money from the donor against his will? Yep. Is it still theft? Yep.

Okay, maybe that’s too direct. What if I do all of those things in the last paragraph but instead of me showing up at your door to threaten you and take your money I hire someone else to do it for me? That person can just take what I owe him for the task—seeing how I have no money—directly from the money he takes from you and give the rest to me so I can pay my father’s medical bills. Would I still be taking money from the donor against his will? Yes. Is it still theft? Ummm … yep. It is.

Maybe that’s still too direct. What if I get together with the rest of the neighborhood and elect someone to hire someone else to go to your house with a gun and threaten you and take your money and give it to me to pay Dad’s medical bills? Am I still taking money from you against your will? Yep.

Well then, how about if, instead of sending someone to your house with a gun the first time, we first send someone without a gun to threaten you with abduction until you pay? And then, should you be unwilling to cough up the cash, we send the second person with a gun to lock you in a small room until you change your mind about the situation? Is that still taking money against the will of the donor? Yep.

What if I do all of the above paragraph but instead, send you a threatening letter saying how you should give me your money, then send the first guy, then the second? Or better yet, I could send you a letter that if you don’t sign it admitting you owe me the money, I will send the first guy without a gun, then the second guy with the gun, then put you in a little room until you give me the money you owe me? That way when you accuse me of stealing money from you I would be able to present the court with a piece of paper that says you owed me the money. Is that still taking money from an unwilling donor?

What if we elect a bunch of people to decide your money should be taken from you to pay for my father’s medical bills, and those elected people hire someone else to send you letters, threaten you without guns first, then if you are unwilling to pay they hire someone with a gun to threaten you, and still unwilling to pay they slap you in restraints and haul you off to a small room until you decide to change your mind about the situation? Is that still taking money by force from an unwilling donor? Yep. It is.

So what if I say that instead of using the money to pay for only my father’s medical bills it is to pay for everybody else’s medical bills, plus ten thousand other things you may or may not approve of,  too? We then elect a bunch of people to decide your money should be taken from you to pay for everybody’s medical bills, and those elected people hire someone else to threaten you without guns first, then if you are unwilling to pay they hire someone with a gun to threaten you, and still unwilling to pay they slap you in restraints and haul you off to a small room until you decide to change your mind about the situation? Is that still taking money by force from an unwilling donor? Yep. It is.

Now what if we take this entire assembly of elected people and the people they hire to threaten you, take your money, and potentially incarcerate you, all against the will of the donor and call them a government? And what if we infuse into the population the idea that the people are all one and any one is all? And what if we fill their heads with the rather arrogant thought that they, as one person in concert with a simple majority of other people, and against the will of the minority of people in opposition, can somehow speak with authority about what other people should be forced to do with their money? For example: “I think we should spend money on people’s medical bills,” in spite of the fact that it, strictly speaking, is not money you’ve earned for yourself, and have that concept legally binding on unwilling donors forced with threatened incarceration to give up their well earned funds. Is this still taking money from people against the will of the donor?

Well what if while doing all of that we say that those people who have a lot of money have no real right to it anyway? What if without any evidence whatsoever, we simply accuse them of stealing it from someone else and have the government take it from them to pay for everybody else’s medical bills? What if we accuse them of being greedy? What if we say they have the responsibility to pay for the needs and arbitrary desires of everybody else, for the good and “General Welfare” (which can mean anything to anybody) of everybody else? What if for no reason whatsoever, based on a purely arbitrary standard, we say it isn’t fair that they have so much and we so little? Are we still taking money by force from unwilling donors? More than that though, at that point aren’t we also saying that there are no individual rights to property or money?

What if we say the poor are weak and the rich are strong so the poor have every right to fulfill their needs by taking money from the rich? Yes, again we are using the threat of force to take money from unwilling donors. But more than that there is the fallacious idea that the poor are somehow weak; while as a majority of people somehow still possess enough power to take what they want from the rich.

Socialism is the consideration that large groups of people have the right to take what they want from small groups of people. Theft is the taking of money from one person for the use of other people against the will of the donor. It does not matter who justifies it or how it is justified. It is still the idea that it is somehow a right of yours to take what was earned by, and belongs to, someone else. It is also the idea that somehow your majority rights matter and the rights of the minority of donors don’t.

In spite of whatever illusion you throw up in front of yourself to justify it and appease your guilty conscience, by taking money from unwilling donors, whether it be for someone’s healthcare or PBS, you are participating in a culture that will sooner or later experience the uncivilized attitude that the rights of individuals and minorities don’t matter when the interests of the masses are concerned.

Your consent to pay more taxes is just as irrelevant to the people who take the money as the lack of consent on the part of the people who voted against them. They're gonna take the money whether you want them to or not.

And in that light I would also ask you if it is  truly a civilized society when that society can justify, directly or otherwise, the threat of the use of guns and incarceration to say that you must share your wealth?

Socialism is Simple and Predictable

It is said in certain philosophical and scientific circles that you are on the path to truth when you can reduce the subject under study to its most simple form. The expression of this idea is the very definition of Ockham's Razor. This level of thought is where axioms are formed, answers to problems occur, and things become really obvious. Over the years I've given some thought to the philosophical principles of socialism and all that it implies. The reasons for this, given the current path of the United States, should be clear. Also for the sake of clarity, what I'm talking about is the idea, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and all forms of government that form around it.

Socialism is simple and predictable.

No matter the country or the specifics of the form it always requires four things. The first is the consideration that it is perfectly okay for large groups of people to take what they want from small groups of people. The second is a promise of financial equality between economic groups and thus everybody will be taken care of between the classes of people. The third is a government, with power over the lives of the people, to enforce the first two by law. The fourth is a population gullible enough to believe that if they give power over to someone else, they themselves will benefit from it.

The predictability of the eventual outcome lies in the simple facts of human nature. People—while having equal rights—are not equal in talent, and thus resent the enforcement of equality, and so when confronted with it will just stop trying to excel or support the system with their inherent abilities. People also naturally resent other people who wield power over them. Additionally, no matter how sincere the expressed efforts of the government promising financial equality and care for all, sooner or later some real tyrant will gain control of the power over the people and take advantage of them. Thus two things will almost always happen sooner or later. First, the government will be unable to provide what they promised, leading to huge social upheaval. Second, a lot of people will die in the social upheaval.

All conversations regarding socialism, or redistribution of wealth, or fairness, or leveling the playing field, or taking care of the poor, elderly or children, or any of the resulting consequences, fall somewhere in those two paragraphs. The first paragraph, regardless of the specifics, is how and why a country adopts socialism. The second paragraph, regardless of the specifics, is how and why it always results in the same thing.

You could break it down as thus and call it the Ten Principles of Socialism:

1) The consideration that it is perfectly okay for large groups of people to take what they want from small groups of people.

2) The promise of financial equality between economic groups and thus everybody will be taken care of between the classes of people.

3) The government, with power over the lives of the people, to enforce the first two by law.

4) The population gullible enough to believe that if they give power over to someone else, they themselves will benefit from it.

5) The predictability of the eventual outcome lies in the simple facts of human nature.

6) People—while having equal rights—are not equal in talent, and thus resent the enforcement of equality, and so when confronted with it will just stop trying to excel or support the system with their inherent abilities.

7) People naturally resent other people who wield power over them.

8) No matter how sincere the expressed efforts of the government promising financial equality and care for all, sooner or later some real tyrant will gain control of the power over the people and take advantage of them.

9) The government will be unable to provide what they promised, leading to huge social upheaval.

10) A lot of people will die in the social upheaval when it all goes wrong.

So there you go. Right there are the ten principles of socialism. There is nothing more to say about it because there is nothing else that can be said about it. Anything a person thinks is an exception to any of the above, or anything supposedly new about it, is merely regurgitating one or more of the above in different words.

Don't trust me on this. Look at any conversation regarding philosophical socialism and see for yourself that all that can be said about it falls under those ten things in some way or another.

Moron Rights

Oops! Did I just mis-type the title of this article? What I meant to call it was "More on Rights" because I write about rights a lot—and I would never suggest that people who don't agree with me about the subject are morons!

Okay, now that I've gotten that bit of sarcasm out of the way I can write a very serious article about the definition of rights. It frequently crosses my mind when I talk with liberals that what they understand rights to be is drastically different than what I understand them to be. I guess for future reference I could qualify their concept of rights with some descriptive and colorful adjective to separate it from what I mean, just for the sake of clarity. So I guess I'll call them...hmmm...okay, "moron rights." That works well enough.

I don't mind paying taxes for things like the military, police and even things such as roads as long as the money is used with expected efficiency. I can use those things and benefit from them, as does the rest of the society. The kinds of taxes I don't like paying is anything that comes from me, because it is somehow their "right" to receive my money, and spend it on something that benefits only them.

I was talking with one of my more respected liberal friends the other day and have a bit of the conversation sticking in my mind. She said she didn't mind paying taxes that go to the benefit of other people for things like healthcare and welfare and the like.

Okay. Far be it from me to tell people what they should or shouldn't mind. I've read enough about slavery in the American South to know that some people didn't mind being slaves either. The point is, I think, that whether you mind it or not, you still don't have a choice.

Anyway, their "right" to receive my money and spend it on themselves for things like food, housing and healthcare, is a leftist concept of rights which I will now separate into a different class. "Moron rights." Now I have to be clear what I'm talking about here. Food, housing and healthcare are rights, if subjected only to my choice and I pay for them myself. That's not what they are talking about though. They are talking about using my money for their food, housing and healthcare as being their right. I suppose I could call them something more politically correct like, "grossly misunderstood rights," but that doesn't exactly flow from the tongue. It's not a very good pun either.

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...."

So why is there so much contention on the simple subject of rights?

The problem for this country begins with how liberals have re-defined the words of Thomas Jefferson.

President Reagan's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 74.1%

I occasionally take a lot of critical fire for being so hard on President Trump for his seemingly unconcerned stance regarding his following of the Constitution. To date I’ve rated and published three expressions of his policies and positions according to my current understanding of the Constitution; Trump's First Address to Congress, Trump's First Inaugural Address and Trump's First Hundred Days Plans. None of these rated particularly high; 52.6%, 36.2% and 51.5% respectively. The method of scoring is included in the links above.

Please understand that these efforts are not for the purpose of attacking the president. This is not a personal thing against him. I simply regard it as my duty as an American citizen, sworn to the support and defense of the Constitution, to know when our political leaders are feeding us lines intended to subvert it.

In the interest of fair comparison and logical evaluation it becomes necessary to compare these numbers with the numbers of other presidents in similar circumstances. The only president which I’d ever done something similar was Abraham Lincoln, and even that wasn’t a rated evaluation.

So in the interest of providing comparisons I decided to do several other president’s speeches, starting with Ronald Reagan’s First Address to Congress on the 18^th of February, 1981. I also intend to do at least one of President Obama’s just to get the radical left wing comparison.

Trump's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 52.6%

Sigh. This is the kind of article no author ever wants to write. With that said, I am a man who is committed by oath to the defense of the Constitution, thus there is no escaping it.

Let me say at the outset of this review of President’s Trump’s address to Congress that I’m am not necessarily a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly against him. In fact, I’m quite happy and relieved that he won over Clinton. President Trump is neither conservative—meaning small government—nor concerned with the Constitution in spite of his recent oath to uphold it. Where he does score high with me is that he tends to make liberal’s heads explode. Anybody who can make Chuck Schumer cry is deserving of some credit.

While I could never vote for him I am not a Never Trumper because such people, mostly establishment RINOs, would hate him even for the things he can do right. I am not a Democrat; they would hate him—in spite of the fact that I think President Trump most properly would be a Democrat—for the unforgivable sin of putting an “R” next to his name and beating Hillary. I am a Constitutional Conservative which means ONLY two things; small government, under the Constitution. If you have to categorize me in hash tag terms I am most properly defined as #AlwaysConstitution. In this I guess you could call me an extremist; so be it. I once volunteered my life in oath to its defense so I might as well defend it.