The Court of Musical Chairs
By Robert Ringer
The second 5-4 reaffirmation of gun-ownership rights by the Supreme Court over the past two years is yet another reminder that the nation’s highest court is nothing more than a political tool. In the recent McDonald v. Chicago case, the Supreme Court found that individuals have a right to possess a handgun in their home for self-defense.
All well and good, but in both the Chicago and D.C. cases, had there been one more liberal on the court, the Constitutional right and, more important, the natural right to bear arms would have been declared “against the law.”
As I said at the time of the D.C. ruling, “When the U.S. was still the home of the free, the Supreme Court vote would have been 9-0. Actually, there would not have been a vote, because there would not have been a ban in the first place. There was a time in this country when the government would not have dared to tell a person he didn’t have the right to protect his family.
Today, however, the Supreme Court has become a game of musical chairs. Our natural rights are very much dependent on the ideological beliefs of any given president at the time he appoints one or more Supreme Court judges.
If a president believes in the Constitution, he appoints judges who share his belief. If he believes the Constitution is an outdated document that is no longer relevant – as does the current White House occupant – he appoints judges whom he feels confident will bypass the Congressional legislative process and simply create new laws (e.g., Sotomayor and Kagan). The polite word for it is “legislating from the bench.”
To accomplish the latter, judges merely elasticize their Constitutional interpretations to violate Natural Law. For example, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 states, in part: “The Congress shall have the power … to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
Question to the Founding Fathers: What did you mean by general welfare? Such vagueness is an invitation to both Congress and the Supreme Court to promote anti-liberty legislation.
Another example is to be found in the so-called Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which states: “[The Congress shall have the power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The problem is that regulating commerce among the several states has come to mean anything the government wants it to mean. As Americans are now discovering, it could very well have been called the Servitude Clause.
Which brings us back to the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What’s missing here is the word and – i.e., “A well regulated Militia … and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As clarity goes, this was not the framers’ best work.
Which is why, even though the Constitution is undoubtedly the best government document ever created, it is no match for Natural Law. Natural Law, which can also be thought of as the “law of nonaggression,” is quite simple: You own your body, you own anything and everything you’ve earned or inherited, and you own the right to do as you please so long as you are not committing aggression against anyone else. Period.
All this leads me to believe that the idea of Supreme Court judges being appointed by the president makes no sense. A left-wing, anti-Constitutional president cons his way into power, then, through the luck of the Grim Reaper, gets to fill enough vacancies to assure that for decades to come there will be a Supreme Court that believes the Constitution is a “living-document”- a court that, in reality, has the power to legislate.
I believe the U.S. needs a Constitutional amendment that would call for Congress to vote for nine new Supreme Court justices every eight years. In other words, eight-year term limits. A liberal Congress could vote in nine liberal members, but when voters got fed up with their anti-Constitutional decisions, it would be all the more reason to replace Congress itself.
And well it should be replaced. If we ever manage to get enough honest politicians elected, they should also pass a Constitutional amendment placing strict term limits on both House and Senate members so we could get back to having government by the people. Limiting the three branches of government to two terms would have the effect of putting the electorate back in control of things.
Having said all this, I may as well throw in one last amendment that I believe would maximize the integrity of our Constitutional system of government: Make all government employees – at the local, state, and federal levels – ineligible to vote. If we can do it with incarcerated felons, who are locked up and unable to continue committing crimes, why not do it with bureaucrats, who are on the loose and able to vote to assure that their neighbors will continue paying for their cushy lives?
Anyone who thinks the views I’ve stated here are extreme needs to go back and read (or reread) the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and everything they can get their hands on about our Founding Fathers.
Syndication:
Please feel free to copy and share this article with your readers. We encourage you to reprint our articles to supplement your own content and drive more traffic to your site – at no charge. The only requirement is that you include the following at the end of each article:
Copyright © 2010 Tortoise Press, Inc.
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. Ringer has appeared on numerous national talk shows and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron’s, and The New York Times. To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World, visit www.RobertRinger.com
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on “The Court of Musical Chairs”, please login below:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
I would propose one thing in addition to your comments and that is for all elected representatives along with their staff and office expenses be paid for by the state that they represent. This would stop them from voting themselves such wonderful perks. There would be no more pensions paid to them with federal funds and anyone now drawing a pension would revert to getting a Social Security check with all funds held in thier retirement accounts place in the Social Security “trust fund”. They can either buy their own medical insurance or be on Medicare if they are 65 or older.
Don
There’s no need to go to such extremes as amendments. Sotomayor lied her way onto the court. She said we have a right to self defense per Heller, then she ruled the opposite in McDonald. So she should be impeached. Not today — she has too many fellow travelers in the Senate — but next January. There has to be a consequence for lying your way onto the court.
Agree with you on the idiocy of letting Presidents drag on the Bench whoever they see fit, or in the case at hand, whoever they feel they owe a favor.
This process also needs to be modified as it allow just another avenue of politics as usual and delegates way too much power to an elected office.
When one compares the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution, allowing a better understanding the events and causes impelling the constitutional convention, and when one reads the Federalist Papers, it is easier to understand why the Constitution would never have been ratified had it not included the Bill of Rights. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was a loud and powerful movement against any such thing; these people loved the Declaration of Independence and they cherished the Articles of Confederation, believing that these two instruments alone were sufficient to secure the rights and liberties of a free people. Moreover, they believed that too much tampering with the existing agreements would afford those with great power the means to exploit the opportunity.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional Convention proceeded against their protest. As such, they insisted that the framers spell out the rights (natural rights) of the people. At the time, this notion of having to articulate certain rights was absurd and really quite unnecessary. Many thought it patently ridiculous to have to “remind” those in power that the people have certain God-given rights with which they must not interfere. It is interesting that both aides of the argument for and against the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution, found the necessity to articulate and codify the rights of the people, a bit odd. After all, they were engaged in the creation of a legal and technical book of operation and best practices for federal government –not the people.
Alexander Hamilton refers to this in The Federalist Papers # 85 where he writes:
“The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single States, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the Confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the States in a disunited situation; in the express guaranty of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.”
In his most recent article Robert Ringer points to the use of a comma instead of the word “and” in the second Amendment where the well regulated militia clause is separated from the right of the people clause to keep and bear arms, as an error by the Founders. May I disagree with this view by saying that the Founders were wordsmiths of the first order and they effectively used punctuation, as well as transitional words and phrases. Additionally, nearly every word and mark of the draft documents were debated in committee and general session of the Constitutional Convention. Although we are often taught that commas are used to help us add ‘breathing spaces’ to sentences they are, in fact, more accurately used to organize blocks of thought or logical groupings. In study of this question I am convinced that the comma between those clauses was written to mean “and.” The Bill of Rights was all about individual rights and states’ rights.
Detractors of the Second Amendment have done a good job of shifting the argument off point; original intent. In order to fully understand original intent, and if we mean to honor original intent, then it is imperative that the judiciary read and understand the Founder’s writings, notes and debates. Among these are the Federalist Papers. During the recent Senate Hearings concerning the appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court I don’t recall hearing any questions from the committee members regarding the writings of Hamilton, Madison or Jay. A question eliciting a viewpoint concerning the construction of the Second Amendment might have been enlightening – much like the discussion we’re presently having. For example; “Ms. Kagan, in reading the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what are your general views regarding the linkage between the militia clause and the people clause?” Also, would you mind commenting on what the word “arms” in this particular reference includes and excludes?” Finally, “does the Second Amendment restriction on the Congress also apply to the states and local government?”
These type of questions wouldn’t be asking how she might rule on an upcoming case…they deal with the foundational views of the U.S. Constitution, concepts of checks and balances, and jurisdiction. The left leaning in this country continue to shift the debate about the law of the land to restrictions on the people rather than restrictions on the federal government. Remember, the U.S. Constitution is a federal code otherwise the individual states wouldn’t have constitutions as well. Robert is right when he reminds us that a 5 – 4 vote in favor of the right of the people is not a victory to celebrate – on the contrary, it is cause for concern. If you love liberty, this recent vote really means the court is only one vote away from rendering the Bill of Rights irrelevant, obsolete; meant for a different people at a different time.
I have read the declaration, the constitution, and reams on the founders, and I don’t think your suggestions are extreme – I think they are more of the same.
Part of the constitution’s genius is always painted as it’s built-in ‘amendability’. This is a red herring. There simply aren’t that many laws (of the natural variety, which you mention), and all of them have already been discovered. Legislation, which is invention and not discovery, otoh, is infinite – that is why and how the federal register gets to be 80,000+ pages, and counting (as of 2008, according to wikipedia).
We already have monopolized wholesale counterfeiting of ‘money’ (legal tender), we have the same in ‘law’ (legislation) – both abject and abysmal failures (except from the perspective of the millions whose bread is thereby buttered). An infinitely amendable constitution is more of the same; how many chimeras does it take to screw in a light bulb? lol….
The founders, and their apologists (devotees? parishioners?) clearly want it both ways, cake on a plate and the same cake in their tummies….
When Jefferson said, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”; and John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”; and when Ben Franklin said, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” and “A republic, if you can keep it, madam…”, how do you reconcile that the men who knew all about democracy went ahead with a constitution that had it’s obsolescence (subversion) already built into it?
These guys, long dead, have been put inside your head, and kept there, for a reason. Until you get them, and their contract-which-is-not-a-contract into logical, and historical, perspective, you haven’t got a chance at coming to a valid conclusion.
There is, however, another issue involved. The right to keep and bear is a private right, and a property right. Any attempt to legislate away such a right, would have been an act of attainder under article 1, section 9 of the U.S. constitution. According to the argument by Hamilton, and the other arguments within the Federalist papers, the constitution already contained all the assurances within the Bill of Rights itself.
The only place where this argument may be supported is under the attainder clause. This was supported in U.S. versus Brown, an attainder case involving the Communist Party.
The doctrine of general law is only applicable under that clause as well… and has been strongly deviated from. The objective was to destroy the system of castes and classes in Britain.
This has to be one of your best essays ever! yes the second amendment should have said: “A well regulated Militia … and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, I don’t think that omission was accidental. We know of the first ten amendments. However, when the constitution was pass there were 200 proposed amendments. I am sure one of your about how the high court could rule was one of them. You see, I don’t hold the founding fathers, nor George Washington in high regards. They were lawyers and (In Washington case) aristocrats or worse (also in Washington case and the worse has nothing to do with slavery)
The best we can do is hope the government crashes and then go back to a better constitution and then to a better articles of confederation and then Natural Law.
Robert,
Alas, I believe that we have crossed a certain “point of no return” in our society where total endemic systemic corporate and political corruption combined with citizen apathy, ennui, confusion, fear, and values diversification has created the perfect dynamics for the rapid decline and dissolution of The United States Of America.
What many of us are doing now is simply discussing, comparing, and debating over our observations on the “process” of collapse, and although many of us are proposing solutions and strategies to ride out the coming storms of perceived political and societal upheaval, it would appear to me that the process has gone so far that it now must literally force it’s course due to factors that have gone beyond our collective will to reverse it or control it.
The course that we are on as a nation seems to have taken on an inevitable process of it’s own with a few people still cognizant enough to aware and understanding of what is occurring and how this is all occurring, and not these few lights in the wilderness are unable to bring together a focused and fortified consensus to effect any reversal in the present trajectory in our national death spiral.
Almost everyone has learned how to “game” the system for their own personal short term benefit….
Our political class is corrupt.
Our judicial and legal class is corrupt.
Our corporate class is corrupt.
The now substantial parasitic class is insatiable.
And the ever diminishing middle class is hopelessly distracted with trivial externally validating attachments that they can neither clear their minds to grasp the gravity of what is occurring from the matrix of mass societal corruptions nor find the political numerical will to stand up to the other entrenched vampiric classes who are literally eating them alive.
Most of the middle class people in this country who are being preyed upon still feel they have something to lose, and by still having something to protect, they experience a fear to risk losing what materialistically and financially remains.
As a result, their collective will to forcefully stand up and declare the present corrupt classes of power holders for what they are, is sporadic and ineffectual.
Until enough people have lost enough material and financial goods to create a more focused and impassioned unified force to effect change from literally having nothing left to lose, the current progression of dismantling our system and thus our nation will continue.
Our tainted judicial and legal classes are just one of the obvious symptoms of a far greater insolvency in the integrity of a national machine where all the gears are beginning to grind and the machine is breaking down as a result of multiple points of friction.
Case in point….
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”
Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.
“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”
Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.
“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”
Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.
Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.
“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”
………………………
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html
“We both know that these monuments have been good to us.” ……The Duke
During my current forth of July road trip—which started out in Las Vegas and is now just leaving Bryce Canyon—I discovered a hand written note from John Wayne that was written to John Ford containing the above quote. The note is on public display inside of Duke’s old cabin right next to Goulding’s Lodge, which is just outside of Monument Valley.
Monument Valley was one of Duke’s favorite locations to film great American classic movies such as The Searchers. These types of classic movies helped define American culture and create a larger than life image of America, which, in turn, gave America a cultural victory over the rest of the world.
Americans often overlook the importance of cultural icons and how they shape our world. At times, cultural icons can shape our world far more than a President, Congressman, or a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, culture often shapes government and the laws that the government passes and the interpretations thereof.That’s why iconic men are so very important to our natural rights, including our gun rights.
The Duke knew that he was an icon and he fully understood the formula which made him one of the biggest movie stars in history. That’s why Ford and he made the long and very expensive journey all the way out to Monument Valley to film on location. Without the monuments, which were a key ingredient to an grade A , gun-slinging western, then Mr. Wayne would not have been such an indelible part of American history.
Sadly, there are no replacements for the American movie icons that helped preserve the natural rights of Americans, including gun rights. The men are gone, but the monuments of Monument Valley remain. Whether or not we Americans know it, Monument Valley and like places, have been good to all of us.
Patiently the monuments wait for the next duke who is man enough to stand in their shadow.
[...] Robert Ringer © [...]
I agree with your premise that govt employees should not be allowed to vote but I would extend the prohibition even further by including all those who are receiving any form of government benefits. This is a clear conflict of interest and should not be allowed.
Another excellent essay, Robert. While the thought of replacing ALL 9 justices at once is a bit of a scary thought (especially with the thugs that are currently in power), I agree with you completely regarding government employees not voting. In fact, I’ve always thought that ANYONE receiving any government handouts should be ineligible to vote. I also don’t think anyone who doesn’t own property should be able to vote. You can count me among those who are tired of supporting other people’s inflated, cushy life styles.
I’m Canadian and probably do not count, but the way I understand the founding fathers were trying to put in checks and balances to guard against tyranny by the state. Given that,I suggest that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the second part of the sentence balances the first.
Because the state requires a well regulated militia (army) the people as a whole cannot have their right infringed, to guard against the former.
Regards
By the way, if you want to listen to a very well articulated discussion between two alpa males on the above subject that Mr. Ringer so adroitly writes about, then follow this link to Alex Jones interviewing Ted Nugent.
http://www.youtube.com/user/thealexjoneschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/7/0lksDT8EoXE
Mr. Nugent’s most recent book “Ted White and Blue is now on the New York Times best seller list. Some people smirk and don’t take Mr. Nugent very seriously, because he tends to be melodramatic, but I recognize a winner when I see one. In fact, I have made more than one comment on Mr. Nugent on this very blog over a year ago. It’s no surprise to me that Mr. Nugent is selling out every seat on his latest tour.
And, more importantly, it is no surprise that Mr. Nugent is helping to spear head the natural right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Nugent is a complete package who appeals to John Wayne types and many others who don’t like to be told what to do by the damned government.
Currently, I’m in Arizona where starting on July 29 it will be legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Now that’s what I call freedom. Thank you Barry Goldwater and all the others with like minds for helping to preserve a tradition of freedom in Arizona.
I know this doesn’t segue smoothly with the above inciteful comments, but has anyone recently revisited The Tortoise’s Little Green Book? I continue to draw on the basic personal wisdom the Tortoise reveals for understanding how to decipher and deal with contemporary issues of personal responsibility and freedom.
In re WRAF on July 10, 2010: Very well said. Thank you.
“The word “regulate” in those days meant trained, and do you notice again the connection between arms and freedom?”
there are many explications of intent, grammar, semantics – of the time and place – available. Here is just one:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html
original intent is critical, but it has long since been thoroughly demolished, AND is much too far removed, temporally, for the majority of people to even comprehend, due to ultra short time preferences and attention spans…just look to this very blog and all the emphasis on ‘the current administration’, as if that is focal….
Mr. Ringer…the purpose of a blog is to drive traffic so as to improve standing in search engine results…allowing posts to accumulate for a week at a time and then dumping them en masse into forum kills conversation and momentum, thereby severely attenuating the realization of your goal. Recommend you address this……..