Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

Equality... in what?

There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.

I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty.  I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.

The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.

If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them.  But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture.  Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.

So I posted this status on Facebook:

I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.

Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people.  People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.

Here is part of what was said:

This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.

So, without the State, there can be no contracts.  Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread.  And, so, I finally "blocked" him.

Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:

Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!

I really need to remember that it's only the internet.  I can laugh and walk away at any time.

.

The mall adventure

A couple of days ago I was at the local mall- a very small and slow mall by "mall standards"- so my daughter could see the Easter Wolverine... umm, Bunny.

Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by.  I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement".  I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.

A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around.  I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him.  Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other.  Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.

I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again.  Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card.  I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.

I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state.  But it is a rare sight around here, indeed.  I would love for it to become a lot more common.  (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)

One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents.  Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side.  Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.


.