Last Sunday, Easter, my wife and I took the grandchildren out for a day of adventure. At one of the locations, I got to talking to a young man, and the twenty-four year old explained to me that he was into politics, but nobody seemed to be able to answer the questions he had about a lot of the madness he saw going on around him. He knows that things are messed up, he recognizes that Barack Obama is unconstitutionally expanding the executive powers of the U.S. Presidency, and that the federal government is far more intrusive than it should be.
Testing his knowledge, and establishing for him a basic foundation regarding how our republic is supposed to function in relation to the United States Constitution, I began asking him about the courts. After recognizing that he agrees the courts are going too far, but he could not necessarily articulate the extent of the court's activism, or the legal boundaries that judges have been betraying, I explained to him the role of the courts from the constitutional perspective.
The judicial branch, I explained, was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. John Jay even turned down a second opportunity to be Chief Justice, telling John Adams that the position was "beneath a man," holding not enough power. When the courts attempted to expand their powers, declaring that Georgia did not have State Sovereignty in regards to the Chisolm v. Georgia case (1793), the founders immediately went into action, proposing the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, which, once ratified, actually reduced the powers of the already fairly weak judicial branch. In 1803, with his written opinion of the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall worked to bolster the power of the court system, declaring the judicial branch has the power of "judicial review." In later cases, he would also give opinions to increase the power of the federal government, such as federal supremacy, which were followed based on the unconstitutional concept of "constitutional interpretation by the courts," a power the judges have held based on Marshall's declaration of judicial review, and the reliance of the system on case law for constitutional definitions.
I once asked a professor who was arguing the point about the courts with me, "we have four liberal judges and four conservative judges, leaving Justice Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court as more often than not the deciding vote. Did the framers of the Constitution intend for that much power to be in the hands of a single man? And with the federal courts, which are a part of the federal government, deciding if laws are constitutional or not (rather than the States making that decision and rejecting unconstitutional laws through nullification), is that not the federal government deciding for itself what its own authorities are? How is that limited government?"
Giving the federal government this kind of power has allowed the statists, those who believe society can only function if there is a Platonian "ruling elite" in place, the opportunity to pursue every controlling mechanism that the statists can get their hands on. With that kind of power has risen government control mechanisms that even border on the ridiculous.
The young man I was talking to inserted that he believes what the government is doing now is evil, bordering on the downright demonic.
"When did this all begin?" I am often asked.
"At the beginning of mankind," I reply. "Did not Cain exhibit much of the same personality traits that we see now intertwined in statism?"
"What do you think about Chem Trails?" the twenty-four year old asked me.
"I think they exist. Are they what the conspiracy theorists think they are? I suppose that is a reasonable assumption when you look at the power-hungry statists we have in control of our system. I think it may be very well that the government is poisoning us through these chem trails. I don't know. I know what people think they are, but until we have solid evidence supporting those ideas, I can't say that I definitively believe that chem trails are governmental in their origin."
"How about the Illuminati?" he asked.
"Bavarian in its origins, I think the Illuminati was a response to America. Officially appearing May of 1776, the Illuminati emerged as an opposition to the concept of limited government offered by the Americans, which would be penned in their Declaration of Independence, and a belief that was evident in their war cries during their revolution against Britain. The Illuminati were utopianists, of which today we call socialists, or communists. Are they as all powerful as today's conspiracy theorists think? No. Have they inserted themselves into the governmental and societal workings of the cultures of the world? Perhaps. The Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateralists, the international bankers and corrupt corporations all exist, but they remain separate islands battling for their own agenda, and none of them have the ultimate black helicopter powers that some folks think. Does that mean they are not a danger? Absolutely not. They pose a definite danger to freedom. Anyone who hates liberty stands as a danger to it. I just believe that the greater threat than the globalists and international statists are the Islamic jihadists."
"Is the United States a corporation?"
"I've heard that before, and my answer is simply, I don't know. But does it really matter? What I mean by that is whether the U.S. is a corporation, or still a sovereign nation, the problems we are experiencing are not because of that distinction, but because we have abandoned the United States Constitution. The solution is the constitution, whether we are a corporation, or not; so rather than bicker over whether or not that conspiracy theory is true, we need to be joining forces to defeat the statists and restore the republic. The truth regarding all of these conspiracy theories is that we need to return to a constitutional foundation, regardless of whether or not there is any truth to how the power structure standing against liberty is assembled."
"That all said, we still must not forget: Yesterday's conspiracy theories are today's headlines."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment