Tag Archives: justice

Patriot Act Charade

Every single person inaugurated into elective office, all people who serve in the military, over six million of them,  swear to protect and defend the constitution.   It is a short document.  The very most important part of it personally, to you, and to me, is the Bill of Rights, without which the thirteen colonies would not have signed on to become the United States; not enough protection.   The most personal part of the Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the constitution is the Fourth Amendment.   It protects You, a person.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In short it means you and your stuff are free, unless there is a search warrant signed by a judge with particulars stating where, who and what is to be searched and seized.

That was regretfully obliterated by the ‘lone wolf ‘ provision of the patriot act. The enemy needs no affiliation.   That means is could be you, or me, anybody.

Sorry, they say.   There is no law, The world is a dangerous place and we are here to protect you…. but forget the fourth amendment and all the millions of Americans who swore to protect it, and those who died thinking they were protecting it.

I have been too morose to post this.   I guess you could call it denial, the first stage of grieving.     I have a good carpenter friend who just lost his house.  Oh, and his family.   He got securitized out of his mortgage after eleven years paying on it.  I  feel I am losing my country.  I made the vow as I entered the Navy to protect and defend the constitution.    So did President Obama and all congressmen and senators now serving.  I repeat myself because I cannot believe all these people do not honor their own word.

What nudged me out of my stupor was when Miss USA was driven to tears by the personal violation by a TSA airport frisker.   Flying home through Dallas she had the ‘freedom of choice’ to get radiation from a new high powered airport scanner that virtually undress you and gives an unhealthy dose of radiation, or to be molested by a female TSA frisk specialist.  But that is for another post.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was prewritten when 9-11 happened and was passed with the hysteria of that very dramatic moment, quickly.  It was not deeply considered then, nor by the congress  when it sunsetted a decade later, conveinently, Osama bin Laden had just been killed and a huge trove of intelligence was captured, and what responsible congressman had the political counterwieght to say “Stop Everything, let us discusss the Forth Amendment and the Patriot act.”  Few, the two Oregon Senators  Wyden and Merkley and Udhall from Utah, but not enough.  So the Patriot Act was extended without discussion another four years, fourteen years after September 11th of 2001.      Meanwhile, the population, especially those who travel by air, become habituated to being frisked for….. being in the USA.

And that is the latest from yourconstitution.   Honored, in the breach.

Patriot Act renewal shreds your rights

This from the New York Times:

“The deal to extend the powers(of the Patriot Act) without changes followed negotiations between the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and Republican leaders including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and the speaker of the House, John Boehner.  “
  This was over the objection of Judiciary Chair  Senator Patrick Leahy and any civil rights group that has read the constitution, which the  Patriot Act shreds.
If you are happy with wire taps without warrant, and targeted assassinations, among other affronts.   Do Nothing.
If you are offended and recognize your rights are eroded by an act passed in the 2001 as 9-11 hysteria was at its peak..  then write your Senators and Representative. and demand that the Patriot Act  be allowed to sunset, as it was written.
I list the text of the Forth Amendment below to remind you of what many veterans have fought and died to protect, and what our leaders are now signing away: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “
And what that means is no one can search your stuff, including papers, computer and cellphone without a search warrant stating what they are looking for.
Removing that, and you are subject to a shakedown by anyone with a uniform.
So write!

Which is worse, bulldozing a graveyard, or building a cultural center?

News or Absurdity; quick, which is it?

Item One: Authorities in Jerusalem bulldozed an Arabic graveyard to make way for a Museum of Tolerance.

Item Two: There is national consternation in the USA that a New York City muslim group wants to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from ground zero, which some are calling sacred ground.

Item Three: Six hundred retired NFL football players are suing a video game outfit because their football game players resemble them.

Item Four: Nick Merrill, and New York city ISP operator finally broke his silence after being “gagged” by an FBI gag order since 2005. In 2005 he was served with a “National Security Letter” which required him to provide FBI agents with the searches and data on his subscribers, yet with no warrant from a judge provided. What is wrong with that? you say.

It is a violation of the first, fourth and fifth amendments of the Bill of Rights, I say.

The constitution and the Bill of Right is on this site. Can you state, not with names but in simple constitutional language what rights of Nick Merrill were violated? (This is described as the practice of citizenship; and practice makes pretty good.)

I have not been able to comment on the above absurdity…… which is actual news, for the last two days. I cannot find a clown suit loud enough, or a mouth pucker round enough. Please comment and help me out of my dumbfound.


A subtext to this entire site is that for a constitutional country whose document begins with We the People, the People (you) must know the law. It is my lament that The King was replaced by The People, and the People have deferred to the Lawyers. You can state your rights to anyone: lawyer, policeman or judge, and that person must obey. The constitution has replaced the king with You, citizen. The President presides over the Congress (which means ‘to walk upright together’) He presides, he is not king. He took an Oath to preserve and protect the constitution. Only if he forsakes his oath and congress does not obey the ‘king clause’ (Article I, section 8, clause 11) is he then king. I ask: where are we, relative to the king, when the president has assassination powers anywhere on the globe with drones, jackals, and a black budget?

We now have a President who is also a Constitutional scholar. Can we as a People hold him to his scholarship?

Grieving ….

Fact 1.
Ted Glick will be charged in Washington DC with up to three years for displaying a banner in the US Senate building that said: ” Green Jobs Now” and “Get to Work”. He was petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, namely, its inattention to Global Warming.

Fact 2.
The US constitution states: Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (the full text of the First Amendment in which this is found in Exhibit A below)

Fact 3/
Most police work to enforce statutes, which are the laws that usher from the law of the land, the constitution. They are made by the legislature and in theory are in concert with it. Most lawyers argue statutes in court. Almost no one today refers to the constitution out of what some see as perverse custom, very different from the early days of our country. If you Know the constitution, and Know grammar well enough to abstract correctly what is written in Fact 2. above from the full text of the First Amendment below, and can state that to the police…. you have a very good case.

Question: Is the Constitution, which is written in clear English to be obeyed? If not, why not.

Exhibit A.
The full text of the first Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

July 4th 1789, The First Act

“Looking back we can recall that the very first act of the first Congress was a tariff, signed, sealed and delivered by George Washington, July 4, 1789. The great majority of that first Congress were farmers.  They lived close to the soil and they understood the physical economy.  No less than five Founding Fathers became presidents, while the Tariff of 1789 was anchored in the statue books.

“George Washington spoke for the free people he led.  Their safety and interests required the nation to promote the manufacturing they needed for self-sufficiency, otherwise they would surrender their independence and sovereignty.   The suggestion that foreigners could provide military supplies was a reflection on the mental acuity of those holding such an opinion, according to Washington.
“John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, none found a bit of dissatisfaction with protection.  Indeed, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and presidents down the line to Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft agreed….”


__ Charles Walter wrote this in 2003 in his introduction to his analysis of money, markets, banks and prosperity in America in his book:  “Unforgiven…. the American Economic system Sold for debt and war”.

I believe what America was then, would be called an “emerging market” today.

Imagine for a quick minute, if we charged a tariff on every gallon of oil imported onto this land of the United States, or for any oil used by our military equal to the value that is lost by its use: carbon injection, pollution, smog, spills, wars, accidents.

While I had the good fortune to meet Charles Walter in 2008, about a year before his passing, I was tremendously impressed with his depth of understanding of the triad of economics, how money works, and prosperity.   You will note that in academia  Economics  and Finance and Small Business are separate majors.    It is just recently that I have had the chance to delve into his book: Unforgiven.   Charles Walter was the publisher and editor of Acres magazine,  www.acresusa.com   a publication concerned from the very early years with organic farming.
He was known for both his work in economics and agricultural economics, which as an academic may share with you, usually have their offices at opposite ends of the campus.


Charles, like Thomas Jefferson and some of the Founders leaned toward the Physiocratic way of thinking.  It was a French creation that honored the production from the land and was good in that realm.   The French version was flawed in some other aspects, namely that they did not value manufacturing.  Some opine today that Capitalism too has its flaws.    Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations in 1776, which was after the revolutionaries had their tea party, and struck out to remove their colonial shackles, which, by the way were economic.

What relation do you think tariffs have with self-sufficiency, and do you think self-sufficiency  is important?

Supreme Disgust

Article. VI. of the US  Constitution lays it out in plain English:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,….. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ….

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

In stark contrast and  polite (if vapid) charade Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan responded to the Judiciary committee’s inquiry today with these words:

ELENA KAGAN: Well, Senator Franken, the most important thing in interpreting any statute — in fact, the only thing that matters in interpreting any statute — is Congress’ intent. Congress gets to make the laws under Article One of the Constitution. And what the court should be doing in applying those laws is trying to figure out what Congress meant and how Congress wanted the laws to be applied. And that is the only thing that the court should be doing.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So what is your definition of an activist judge?
ELENA KAGAN:” Well, Senator Graham, I think my definition is somebody who doesn’t take three principles to heart.
The first principle is deference to the political branches in making the policy decisions of this nation because that’s who ought to be making the policy decisions of this nation.
The second principle is respect for precedent, precedent as a doctrine of constraint and humility, and also stability in the law.
And the third principle is deciding cases narrowly, deciding them one at a time, deciding them on narrow grounds, if one can, avoiding constitutional questions, if one can.”

Millions of people took an oath to preserve and protect the constitution; That includes judges, elected officials, federal employees and all service personnel. Let me speak here as one of them, and a lover of the constitution:

That testimony sounds like that of a… let me say it kindly, a non-comittal, to the legislative body that must confirm her. It does not sound like someone familiar with the text quoted verbatim above from the US constitution, nor like a person who is dedicated to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights with the first three words of that document: “We the People”.   My prime objection is the very narrow conformity of the Court.   And yet, as I have observed Elena Kagan, I ask… does this person stand for anything?    I believe a Supreme Court Justice ought to stand, and stand fiercely For the US Constitution and the justice that it enshrines.    I see just another process worker like John Roberts.
I do not believe the contradiction between the text and the testimony needs ANY explaination. On its face, it is contradictory. And it is only through acceptance of such contradiction that any court could come up with the absurdity” “money is speech”.

I look forward to your comments…  and hope you find the comments tab under the title of each post.

The Constitution of the Supreme Court

Mt Rainier

Mt Rainier

The Supreme Court enacts the US Constitution.

It sees that the statutes made in state legislature, and the federal congress comport with
the Constitution of the Unites States.

Lawyers very rarely refer to the constitution… they make their living contesting statutes.

There are 11 federal circuit courts, appeals courts that funnel law suits to the Supreme court

So the Supreme Court represents the American People in making the laws in the United States
to be consistent, and not to conflict with the US Constitution.

So let us look at the composition of the Supreme Court, and it’s new nominee to see what is the constitution of the court the adjudicates the constitution.
Number of Members: 9

Number of men: 6
Number of birthplaces: 5 Alito and Scalia are from Trenton, New Jersey
Number of women: 3
Number of birthplaces of the women-   1:  New York City
Number of colleges represented-            2 :Yale and Harvard
Number of religions represented-          2 :Catholic and Jewish

Military Experience: 1 year, Army Nat’l Guard of CA, _ Kennedy.

My view is that all justices rightfully have had mountains of legal experience and  yet regretfully almost no experience with the elements, with elected life or with a perspective Other than legal.  My view is that common sense is the arbiter of what fleshes out the constitution, not stare decisis, the latin term not found in the constitution  which seeks that the mass of law matches the mass of previous law which thus suborns the Constitution…. and does not respect it as Supreme Law of the Land.   This is Chief Justice Roberts position, and as far as I can read by Elena Kagan’s testimony, hers as well.