When Obamacare was first passed all the conservatives kept saying it was “clearly unconstitutional” and that the “courts would strike it down”. But that didn’t happen. It was upheld by a “split decision”, and now, we have it and it isn’t going anywhere. Yay, the system of freedom worked.
People act like the issue of whether something is “unconstitutional or not” is something that “egg heads” discuss on Sunday talk shows. People think like this because that is how the government WANTS you to think about the issue. They made you think like that in their government indoctrination centers and through the mass media. They don’t want people thinking AT ALL.
And certainly, one of the last things they can have you realize is that if the feds pass a law which takes your property, life or time “unconstitutionally” in either a tax or some other way, like Obamacare does, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and simply stealing. They have no authority AT ALL to do it. NONE. Do you get that? It is as “lawless” and “illegitimate” as the supposed regimes we spend billions of dollars bombing because they “aren’t legitimate”. Do you see that?
The government can only act in a lawful and legitimate way by acting within the powers granted it through the Constitution. If it does something that is “unconstitutional”, that is the same as saying that it is acting lawlessly, and illegitimately.
In order to be sure that it can always grow and do whatever it wants without any consequence, the government has made up a get out of jail free card for its agents. It is called acting “under the color of law”. Meaning, government agents are basically, for all practical purposes, immune from any consequence if there was a “law” they acted under when they “acted”. It makes no difference that the law was outside any authority the government actually has. They have created this protection to encourage the agents, i.e. the police, and bureaucrats, to “enforce” any and all laws, regardless of their legitimacy. I mean, why not? If you don’t enforce it you get fired. If you do enforce it and the law was illegitimate, you’re off the hook. You see, now that’s what I call a WIN WIN.
Do you see, that if the “exceptions” didn’t exist, then the individuals necessary for the government to act and to thereby abuse you with illegitimate laws, would hesitate to enforce those questionable laws, because they would KNOW that they could be sued individually, or be held CRIMINALLY liable for violating your constitutional rights? Do you get that? That is a key piece of the puzzle for how the game is worked on you.
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It is absurd to allow such immunity. It ENCOURAGES abuse. That is WHY the exception exists.
Without the exception, the questionable laws couldn’t be enforced, and it would FORCE EVERYONE TO THINK about the consequences and authority for their own actions. Each person would have to look at the law and the constitution and decide FOR THEMSELVES whether it met the limitations of the constitution. That can not be allowed. There must be mindless compliance with orders from the government.
The next key piece of the “unconstitutional” puzzle is the most amazing of all to me. They have actually made the people believe that “we the people”, after fighting a long bloody war to win our freedom from a central government, then decided to form a “more perfect union” with a strictly limited federal government. Now there had to be a method to keep the reigns on this Limited government. The government now tells everyone that the plan we came up with was to have a single employee of that limited government tell the whole country whether his employer was acting within its authority. Oh, and this employee bureaucrat would not be elected, and they would serve for life.
Is that in any way credible? No, it is laughable. But that is exactly what you NOW believe. Because you believe that the U.S. Supreme court is the final arbiter of whether the U.S. Government is acting within its bounds. Do you see that? Do you believe anyone would agree to that method? No. It is absurd.
What do I mean only one, there are 9 justices on the Supreme court. Well, that’s true. But there is nothing even IN the constitution about how a decision has to be made. So the court itself has “determined” that only a majority are necessary for a binding decision. Does that itself make any sense? Of course not, it is absurd. ANY DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS, AT A MINIMUM!. But, alas, one’s enough. As Maxwell Smart used to say, “missed it by that much”.
So the reality is that many many “controversial” decisions are made as 5 to 4. That means 1 justice made the decision. Get it? All we hear about now is “which way will justice Kennedy go”? Who’s the “swing vote” etc. Do you see? ONE man or woman tells the entire country what the “law is” for all time, and what their employer is “allowed to do”. One employee of the entity that employs them makes the decision for the whole country.
This is the supposed “genius” we are inundated with at all time about the founders brilliance in devising this great system. It would be laughable if it wasn’t actually believed by the brainwashed masses.
Now I want to look at the implication of this situation so that you can see it for what it really is. So you can once and for all stop ever saying the founders were geniuses and that the compromises they reached were brilliant and how we need to spread this system of freedom all over the world. Please once and for all that ridiculous talk needs to end.
Let’s assume they pass a law that says that the people in Missouri are now considered “terrorists”. The law further says that in order to save money in rounding these people up, that individuals are allowed to go and round up the citizens of Missouri. And in order to incentivize the activity, you get to keep 50% of any of the assets the people you catch.
Okay, now I get that the example is extreme. But I am just trying to make a point so just follow along.
Obviously when the law is passed it will be “challenged” as “unconstitutional” and everyone will assume it will get struck down as being a “violation of the equal protection” clause. But in the meantime it GOES FORWARD, get it? Now what if the Supreme court in a split decision upholds it. What is your option if you’re in Missouri?
Nothing, it’s over. Get it? Is the law clearly a violation of equal protection? Yes. You can just read the language yourself to see that. But the “law” doesn’t protect you. There is nothing unrealistic about the example except that it is extreme in order to point out the fact that the SYSTEM does not protect the people or limit the government in any way. The SYSTEM does not do what you have been told.
And before you say, that can’t happen, look at the Credit River Case. It is undisputed that the Federal reserve notes we all use are not backed by silver or gold. The constitution’s language is clear and unequivocal. Yet, the courts have found exceptions and made stuff up to allow unconstitutional conduct and laws to be stamped as constitutional.
The same goes for the first and second amendments. The first says Congress shall make no law abridging. NO LAW ABRIDGING, Yet there is a whole body of exceptions which then proceed to abridge. They are made up, they have no validity at all, except that the people have been made to believe that one unelected guy can make up any exception he wants.
The second amendment simply cannot have more clear language. “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.” Again, how can there be stronger language than that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. INFRINGED FOR Pete’s sake. What stronger wording could have been used? Yet, it is all for naught.
Exception after exception carved out by the government employees expanding out their employers authority despite the clear unambiguous language. And the whole time the same government tells the people and they believe, that the system LIMITS the government and is “genius”.
The final piece of this laughable and shameful puzzle is the idea that once the Court rules, the only way that the people can reverse it is to get new people on the court and have them over turn it. So the people are held hostage to waiting for people to die and then hoping that they can have the right president at that time to make the right appointment to then get the case back in front of the court to get the court to then reverse.
This is the genius of the framers. All hail their brilliant system of freedom. The greatest the world has ever known!!! How can anyone believe this nonsense? Honestly, it is embarrassing to me that anyone believes this. And all it takes to see it is TO QUESTION THE BASIC THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. Nothing more.
Without the ability of the STATES themselves to check the federal government’s conduct and to make their OWN decisions about whether the law oversteps the constitution, there is NO CHECK get it? Without the ability of the States to secede when the Federal government oversteps, after the state determines the law is unconstitutional, there is no right to self determination. Do you see? I will leave for another time the discussion of those issues.
If you want to hear a bit more, I have it here.
I just saw this and had to put it in here.
It is about how the government is going to “help us” by making the internet even more betterer and even freerer by regulating it! yay. Oh, and the government is arguing with itself about what the “appropriate” levels are. Boy they are really fighting it out up there. So much controversy. So many sides. Oh wait, only one side. Government arguing with government. But never fear it will all get decided ultimately by the Supreme court! Yay, we’re saved by the brilliance of our founding father’s system once again.
It will never end until people stop accepting it. Just normal people.
Be well my brainwashed brethren.