Huh? What was that about "spewing fallacy" that you were talking about yesterday?
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Romney's New Constitution: FedGov Can Do Whatever Beijing is Willing to > Subsidize > *Posted by William Grigg <[email protected]> on October 4, 2012 10:07 AM > > Mitt Romney's budget-cutting model is to ask: "Is the program so critical > it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get > rid of it." > > On this construction, the FedGov is authorized to do whatever China is > willing to subsidize, rather than being limited to what the U.S. > Constitution permits. > > (Yes, I know -- the Constitution is a snare and a > delusion<http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w268.html>, > but it does remain marginally useful as standard against which to measure > the government's hypocrisy.) > > xxx > > *Obamacare and the Revenge of the 'Secret Constitution' > *by William Norman Grigg > > *"[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, and to > bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a general sense > the will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited > only by its means and power to make its will effectual."* -- Joseph > Story, *Commentaries on the > Constitution*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QO9ZMK?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B004QO9ZMK&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > III, 327, 330 > > *"The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this – > Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, > absolutely unrestrained by rules." *-- Vladimir Lenin > > A constitution merely prolongs the pretense that a political government > can be limited by laws that *it* will interpret. Eventually, every > constitutional government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula – "Power > without limit, resting directly on force." > > The function of the judiciary is liturgical: It transmutes the restrictive > language of the constitution into a mandate for government action. This > process is called "state-building" – and the purpose of the judiciary, > insists Professor Jack M. Balkin of Yale Law > School<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/bio.htm>, > is to "ratify significant revisions to the American social contract." > > According to > Balkin<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/>, > "the most important function of the federal courts is to legitimate state > building by the political branches." It does this by supplying the > appropriate scholarly conjurations every time those in charge of the State > seek to enrich their powers at the expense of individual liberty. > > In this fashion, the relatively modest constitutional state of the early 19 > th century – which, Balkin notes with palpable disapproval, "didn’t do > very much more than national defense and customs collection" – built itself > into the omnivorous monstrosity he calls the "National Surveillance State." > This is an entity that claims the authority to slaughter, torture, and > imprison anybody on the planet for any reason. From Balkin’s perspective, > the role of the courts is not to protect the rights of the individual, but > to issue the occasional theodicy justifying the inscrutable ways of the > divine State. > > "Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the > nature of the social compact," writes Balkin in > <http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/> > *The > Atlantic*<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/>. > "Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the > civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts > are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent > with our ancient Constitution" – a procedure that frequently involves > subjecting language to treatment that even Dick Cheney would describe as > torture. > > In order for this to work, candor must be scrupulously avoided, and the > pretense of constitutionalism must be preserved. > > "Courts do not simply rubber stamp what the political branches do," Balkin > asserts. "Rather, they set new ground rules. The government may do this as > long as it doesn’t do that. Legitimation is Janus-faced: it establishes > what government can do by establishing what the government cannot do" – at > least, for now, until those running it decide that the time has come to do > what was previously impermissible. > > That’s what happened in the Obamacare ruling, Balkin concludes: "The > political branches sought to build out the American state and change the > terms of the American social contract. The Court legitimated this result, > but set new ground rules for politics going forward." > > As he points out, both branches of the Establishment party want to > continue building the Leviathan state, albeit in the service of different > constituencies: "Most Republican politicians don’t actually want to strip > the federal government of most of the powers to regulate, tax and spend > that came with the New Deal. This is because Republican politicians want to > use those powers to promote Republican policies…." > > Thus it was exquisitely appropriate that the Supreme Court’s ratification > of "the most important piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s" > came in a majority opinion written by a Bush-appointed Republican > conservative. After all, we should expect adherents of the Party of Lincoln > to be doing the works of Abraham. > > In his book *Our Secret > Constitution*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195156285?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0195156285&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>: > *How Lincoln Redefined American > Democracy*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195156285?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0195156285&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > George P. Fletcher, a Marxist Columbia University School of Law professor, > describes how the mission of Abraham the Destroyer was not to preserve the > constitutional union, but rather to impose a new order – one created > through aggression by the central government against the states that > created it, and the people from whom it supposedly derived its powers. > > "The new order inherits an operating Congress, Executive, and Judiciary," > writes Fletcher, and although federal institutions have been "recast in new > functions, the forms remained the same." Behind a change in federal > functions is a new ruling ideology, in which the central government elite > now acts on "the consciousness of setting forth a new framework of > government, a structure based on values fundamentally different from those > that went before." > > "The heart of the new consensus is that the federal government, victorious > in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its > citizens," writes Fletcher approvingly. The Founders' Constitution was sold > to the populace as an austere and proscriptive document that defined the > few and specific things the central government would be permitted to do. > > This arrangement was changed through Lincoln's war of aggression, > according to Fletcher, since "the liberty that comes to the fore in the > intended postbellum constitutional order and under the Secret Constitution > requires the intervention of government. *Liberty is born in the state's > assertion of responsibility to oversee and prevent relationships of > oppression*." (Emphasis added.) > > That is to say that "liberty" is a revocable and highly conditional gift > of the State, and that "oppression" exists anywhere there are limits placed > on the exercise of federal power. One is "free" only to the extent he > supports, and is subject to, the benevolent rule of the unfathomably noble > beings who inhabit the Imperial Capital. Questioning their edicts and > actions on "constitutional" grounds is intolerably impudent – nay, it is > nothing less than blasphemy, since everything our masters do is blessed > with the "presumption of constitutionality." > > In his recent book *It Is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is > Wrong*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595553509?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1595553509&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > Judge Andrew Napolitano (one of the few jurists worthy of that honorific) > underscores the importance of the Supreme Court’s *United States v. > Carolene Products* ruling in 1938. > > The case dealt with a federal statute banning the sale of a product called > "filled milk." The measure, which was passed as a favor to the dairy lobby, > was devoid of constitutional authority – but the Supreme Court upheld it in > the interest of "state-building," and in doing so it promulgated a new > doctrine of "presumed constitutionality." > > "The Court’s reasoning was that the statute should be *presumed > *constitutional, > and thus the burden was on the defendant company to prove that Congress > could have no constitutional authority and no lawful basis for regulating > the sale of the product – a nearly impossible showing," recalls Judge > Napolitano. "By requiring a presumption of constitutionality instead of a > presumption of liberty, the Court permitted Congress to transgress economic > liberties for almost any reason it wished." > > That presumption invests the federal government with something akin to > constitutional infallibility: Between 1937 and 1995, as Judge Napolitano > observes, the Supreme Court didn’t strike down a single piece of federal > legislation on constitutional grounds. > > Many people blessed with sound, sober, and subtle minds believe that all > of this represents a "perversion" of the original constitution. Others, > such as the ever-perspicacious Butler Shaffer, > insist<http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114620.html/t_blank>that > the federal government has "never deviated" from the Constitution: The > document was written in a way that *encouraged* government expansion and > provided the means to accomplish it while sustaining the necessary illusion > that its powers were effectively limited by law and its administrators were > in some sense accountable to the people they rule. > > Any governmental charter permitting seizure of property through "eminent > domain" and the suspension of habeas corpus (the irreducible due process > guarantee) for *any* reason is latently totalitarian at best; those > provisions offer a glimpse of the "secret constitution" described by > Fletcher, in which federal power is limited only by the ingenuity and > brazenness of those who wield it. > > Many conservatives reacted to Judge Roberts’ Obamacare ruling by giving > voice to the same pious outrage they express every time the Supreme Court > redefines the "social contract." A healthier reaction would be to ask: Why > should any individual be governed by a "contract" that he never signed, and > that the other party can unilaterally revise at its pleasure? > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
