Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke at the Southern Methodist University (SMU) law school.  During his speech, he said that the federal Constitution is “not a living document:  It’s dead, dead, dead.”

That statement stirred some controversy.  I’ve received several email from readers who cite Scalia’s comments as proof that “even the Supreme Court now admits that the Constitution is dead and of no force or effect!“

These readers don’t understand that Scalia is exactly right.  It’s unfortunate that the debate over the reading of the Constitution has fallen into a “living Constitution” vs. “dead Constitution” dichotomy.  It’s hard to fight for a “dead Constitution”.  But that’s the fight we should wage.

Those who argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, argue that the meaning of the Constitution changes or evolves with time and context.  The people who favor the “living Constitution” concept are those who want rule by man (themselves) rather than rule by law (the Constitution).  Under the pretext that the Constitution is a “living” document, the Constitution can mean anything anyone in a position of power says it means at any time.  It can mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow and a third thing next week.

 

Learn the Language or Accept your Status as a Slave

Black’s law Dictionary, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A friend of mine sent me an email based on recent reports that “On Friday, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act which gives the government the ability to electronically monitor the phone calls, e-mails and other communications of Americans without a probable cause warrant as long as they can claim that one of the parties to the communication is believed to be outside of the U.S.”

The average American is unconcerned that the FISA Act authorizes the federal government to make warrantless wiretaps of phone calls made from the “U.S.” to Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.  The vast majority of Americans will never make a call to a foreign country “outside of the U.S.,” so the vast majority don’t care if the government can wire tap calls to foreign countries without a warrant.  But the average American’s indifference to these warrantless wiretaps is based on the assumption that the phrase “outside the U.S.” necessarily applies only to calls made to foreign countries.

My friend, however, asked, “I wonder if ‘outside the U.S.‘ means to the government what it does to us?”

 

US vs USA

Philadelphia – Old City: Independence Hall – The Signing of the Constitution in A.D. 1787. But did the “Singning” constitute Ratification?  (Photo credit: wallyg)

A couple of friends sent an email to me concerning the meanings of “United States,” “United States of America” and “The United States of America”.  I replied as follows:

It seems to me that the Founders were incredibly casual with their use of the terms “United States” and “The United States of America”.  They routinely used the term “the United States of America” (in the Preamble, for example) to almost certainly mean “The United States of America”.  That allowed later generations of villains to define “United States of America” in a way that’s other than “The United States of America”.  They left us an almost astonishing burden of ambiguity and confusion.  In retrospect, their failure to precisely define what “United States” and “the United States of America” meant is equivalent to an Achilles Heel that opened the door to great treason in this country.  They assumed the meanings of those terms were obvious and would remain obvious to their descendants.  They were mistaken.

 

The Single, Most Important Word in American History

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with excerpts from the Declaration of Independence in background (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC was commissioned about A.D. 1934 and dedicated (not including in the final bronze sculpture) about A.D. 1943.

I visited the Jefferson Memorial back about A.D. 2000.  As I recall my visit, I saw a stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s dome-shaped roof.  On that ring, excerpts from some Jefferson’s most memorable statements were carved in stone.  As I recall, one of those excerpts included the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain INalienable Rights”.

I was stunned.

It’s absolutely certain and clear that Jefferson’s text in the “Declaration of Independence” (true name, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”) referred to “UNalienable Rights”.  Nevertheless—on Jefferson’s own Memorial—the word carved in stone is “INalienable”.  It’s inconceivable that the word was misspelled into stone by accident.  It’s inconceivable that the mistake has “accidentally” gone uncorrected for most of 70 years.

Still, perhaps my recollection is faulty.

Maybe (as GW Bush might say), I “misremembered” and the word “inalienable” does not appear on the stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s domed roof.

 

“HUMAN BEING” = “Animal”?

“Humanimal” from The Island of Dr. Moreau

If you’ve followed this blog for long, you probably know that I am fixated on the state and federal drugs laws that define the people to be “animals”.  (See, “Man or Other Animals” and especially the Civil Suit I was involved in.)

I understand pretty clearly that gov-co’s attempts to define us as “animals” constitutes an act of treason, genocide, and especially spiritual warfare.

I also suspect that an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” identifies a person or perhaps a capacity other than that signified by the proper, capitalized name “Alfred Adask”.

So I was much surprised when someone sent me an email with a definition of “HUMAN BEING” that recognizes all lower or inferior people to be “animals” and “property” and signifies all such inferior people with an ALL-UPPER-CASE name like “ALFRED N ADASK”.

That particular definition is found on a website named “One-Evil.org” which appears to regard some or all of the Catholic Church as evil.  I’m not here to recommend or disparage that website.  I’m simply surprised by the definition of “HUMAN BEING” found on that website.  The definition is well-written and appears to be the result of some man or institution of authority.  It’s conceivable that the definition was originally drafted by some element of the Catholic Church, but I have no evidence to support that possibility.

I would very much like to know who/what drafted the following definition.  Whoever drafted that definition strikes me as having an enormous amount of knowledge.  However, I don’t know who/what drafted the definition, so I have no idea as to the definition’s legitimacy or authority.

 

Eat More Pot!

Image via Wikipedia

I’m an alcoholic–but I haven’t had an alcoholic beverage in 35 years.  I used to smoke 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes (when I was drinking), but I haven’t had a cigarette in 34 years.   I don’t drink iced tea or soft drinks.  I’ve had one Coca Cola in the past 20 years.  I don’t drink anything but water.  I tried a few drugs when I was in my teens and twenties, but I’ve never spent a dime buying illegal drugs.  My drug of choice was always alcohol.

I don’t do drugs.  Except for a few experiments when i was a kid, I never really have.

I make these statements to establish that I do not recommend that anyone use any drugs–unless compelled to do so by medical necessity.  I don’t want any of my readers to suppose that the video below is intended to advocate drug use.

But the following video makes a compelling case for the benefits to found in eating cannabis as a raw vegetable rather than smoking (heating) it so as to become a drug.

 

Registered . . . Where?

Image via Wikipedia

I received the email below.  I haven’t verified the source or the relevant laws of “COLORADO” (“this state”).  More, even if the email’s allegations are true for “COLORADO,” that doesn’t mean that they would also be true for other administrative divisions (like “TEXAS” or “ILLINOIS”) of “this state”.

Nevertheless, this email has both the ring of truth and of brilliance.  The insight offered is so damn simple that, if true, every student of traffic laws should be embarrassed to have overlooked such an obvious truth for so long.

Apparently, the email’s subject (“James”) read the “COLORADO” laws concerning vehicle registration.  He realized that while “registration” of “motor vehicles” was required by state law, that law did not adequately define “motor vehicles” and did not specify where such “motor vehicles” must be “registered”.

 

Words

Joseph Goebells Image via Wikipedia

In the beginning, there was the Word . . . .

And almost immediately thereafter, there was attorning and manipulation of words–resulting in “propaganda”.  (“Surely, you will not die . . . .”)

  ”He who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition. This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses.”  -Joost Meerloo

“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” - Edward Bernays

 “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  -  Joseph Goebbels

We are not ensnared or enslaved by guns and clubs–we are ensnared by words. Those who don’t respect their dictionaries as much as their firearms, have little hope of being free.  Those more willing to shoot than to speak out are similarly condemned.

 

Chief of State?

Image via Wikipedia

The CIA publishes it’s “World Factbook” at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.  This Factbook lists every nation on earth and provides a modest description of each nation’s history, demographics, natural resources, industrial capacity and income.  The Factbook is a particularly interesting document because it sometimes seems to tell the truth.

For example, if you visit the CIA World Factbook website, and enter “United States” into the search engine, you’ll see a description of a nation called “United States”. This description includes a map at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.  This map is interesting because, while it includes the location of some major cities and rivers, it does not include any reference to the States of the Union.  Admittedly, the map is small.  Including the borders of each of the States of the Union might make the map extremely difficult to read.

On the other hand, the “Factbook” is published on the internet and there’s no apparent size limit sufficient to prevent the CIA from providing a map of the “United States” that’s large enough to identify all of the States of the Union–or even all the counties, if they cared to do so.

Therefore, some people believe that the “United States” being described by the CIA map is not merely an oversimplification.  Instead, they believe the CIA map is accurate and doesn’t describe any States of the Union because there are none in that particular “United States”.  Instead, we see a properly drawn map that corresponds to the singular territory that is sometimes described as “this state”.

 

More Evidence of “this state”

Image via Wikipedia

It appears that the government has abandoned the States of the Union (each loosely referred to as “The State”) and substituted a new set of territories and/or administrative divisions of a single territory owned by the “United States” that are each generally referred to as “this state”.  If you’re not already familiar with this theory, you can find other articles offering more explanation at “The State vs this state“.

Under this theory, it appears that “The State of Texas” (a State of the Union) has been supplanted by the territory of “Texas,” “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and/or “TX”.  Similar replacements have apparently taken place for all of the States of the Union.

If the theory sounds unbelievable, there is supporting evidence.  For example, the Texas Tax Code declares in part:

 TITLE 2. STATE TAXATION

SUBTITLE E. SALES, EXCISE, AND USE TAXES

CHAPTER 151. LIMITED SALES, EXCISE, AND USE TAX

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 151.001.  SHORT TITLE.  This chapter may be cited as the Limited Sales, Excise, and Use Tax Act.  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1545, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982.

. . . .

 Sec. 151.004.  ”IN THIS STATE“.  “In this state” means within the exterior limits of Texas and includes all territory within these limits ceded to or owned by the United States.  Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1545, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982.