The US Constitution: Manipulated By Leftists

It's time to make good on my promise in the comments section a few posts ago. It's taken me over two weeks to craft this newest post. Because, following Kagan, the clouds started to part and I saw a method and a plan being created.

Now is the time to do what I term the "logical extension."

Now is the time to make plain what I believe to be the goal of the current Obama Administration as well as the goal of Leftist (so-called) "Progressives."

I have been considering and researching this for months. Some of my most basic sources were, of course, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves, as well as historical references and, oddly, a speech I found from Stephen J Markman (Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court) at Hillsdale College. This tended to solidify and confirm my thoughts and musings.

I believe the ultimate Leftist goal is to make federal judges the final arbiter on all issues great and small. The goal is to give federal judges and SCOTUS the ability to impose broader and more limiting cuffs upon the United States and, more pointedly, upon the states. You have no doubt heard the phrases "Living Constitution" and "21st Century Constitution." These are buzz phrases the likes of which should active every bell, whistle and klaxon you possess.

The goal is to transform the Constitution completely "under the radar" whilst America deals with day-to-day problems. The goal is to move the individual American away from input and to make him or her more dependent upon the decisions proffered by "superior" intellects whose minds are more enlarged, envigorated, tolerant, acquiescent, forward-thinking and global.

The goal is to transfer UP local and state and national issues into, literally, a planetary vein.

The goal is to diminish America, per se -- to diminish the democratic and representative processes of our government. The goal is to -- in this country -- move from broad to specific.

The biggest determinant?

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

- It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT "guarantee" so-called "rights" to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs -- rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: "RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM."

Leftists wish to enable a solid "privileges or immunities clause" which becomes open-ended and -- therefore -- susceptible to specific 'interpretation" by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A "logical extension" might be to allow "privileges or immunities" to create new "rights" which could "guarantee" social or economic "equality."

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be "redistributed" as seen fit by your government.

Your "rights" will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant "representative" decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and -- therefore -- completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

Make no mistake: the purpose of Mr Obama's will is to impose federal overarching positives upon each and every one of us; it isn't about what may be limited; it is ALL about what might be expanded for us. Because we exist in one class: as voters who can be guilted and manipulated.

We exist as a class to be subsumed and guilted and lied to and turned upside-down to shake out each and every penny we possess.

My apologies for making this post so long. Please bear with me.

It is time to reference Boumediene v. Bush (2008) in which foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war -- a war in fact authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-In-Chief under Article II, Section 2 -- possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

Judges have now began to sharply expand upon this role. As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.

Then there is the Ninth Amendment. Justice Markman writes:

Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.

Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”

The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to thefederal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.

Transnationalists:

It is their belief that international and domestic laws are merging into global laws. Nationalists claim that local national law applies. Future SCOTUS appointments will determine just how much sovereign law is displaced by overarching interests.

Transnationalism is a word that should alert all possible bells and klaxons and tones. If accepted and enacted, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the binding of federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements never formally ratified by the United States Senate -- much less enacted into law by our Congress.

Each and every incident of "war crimes" and "violations of the earth" would be prosecutable, as complicit by the US.

This is and would be, the ruination of our entire nation.

We HOLD power.

Whatever we GIVE AWAY, that is our determination.

President Lincoln said "Would we be far wrong, if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?"

A LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY:

Consider the European Union. Whatever treaties existed extant would be subsumed into EU precedence. The EU -- as it stands today, as wavering as it exists -- is not backed by as immutable a document as the US Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle."

His point was that if you do not have a national government you can't expect to remain a nation.

Further, there are Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is insanity.

It is not impossible for the United States to lose its sovereignty, if it purposely chooses not to protest or make a public refusal to various international demands.

To wit: EU administrators have already accepted that any kind of "treaty" is somehow superior to their own national constitutions. To the point where, when regulations are spit forth from the European Commission, they supercede statutes and constitutions.

But here's the amazing point to note: the European Union does NOT have a "constitution" itself!

The EU claims political superiority over member states but declines to be responsible for their defense. As if "defense" is an issue that simply does not "factor."

The "Kyoto Protocol" is another example. Had we signed on, it would have turned over massive amounts of decision-making from our country UP to "international authorities." Authorities who couldn't care less about our position, our history, our future. Mr Obama would love to re-negotiate another treaty along these lines.

As I wrote previously, the International Red Cross draws no lines. The US is on par with Yemen or Syria. The IRC already works against US soldiers.

In Europe, it doesn't mean much to be French or British or Italian any more.

The Progressives and Leftists of this country would quite enjoy removing US sovereignty and upfitting, to a global authority, your individual rights to life, liberty, private property, speech, writing, responsibility.

If we willingly allow more of our national policy to be made at an international level, our government has not only less determination but less moral authority to determine what it is to be an American.

When everyone is "equal" and everything is "the same" then no one has freedom and everyone is subjugated.

BZ