It used to be that a king’s word was law.
In the New World the european immigrants threw off the colonial yoke of their oppressors in favor of rule by the people. The people would make the law and then the law would be king.
The experiment worked…for awhile…..............................
Until I heard Al Gore mention this stuff it did not click. I had heard George Bush Jr. made pronouncements when signing bills in to law. I had heard he made a pronouncement that “this is advisory(as opposed to binding)” when referring to the McCain torture amendment. Until Al Gore mentioned it the only place I had read about this was propaganda from lyndon larouche. The dude is a whacked out cult leader, which is precisely the reason he has the money and manpower to do some intense research. Although his shit is blatant manipulative appeals to gain himself more power, still some truth that was very little known sometimes gets through. Larouche’s explanation is as follows: Carl Schmitt was a jurist for the Weimar that provided the legal justification for the gradual expansion of executive power which transformed Weimar in to the third reich. The idea is that this ideology whether brought here by nazis under project paperclip or just through a transmission of ideas found its’ home in the United States. This legal ideology found its’ home in the Federalist Society. Now until I hear corroboration this stuff is off the wall. So I heard murmurs in the blogosphere and then…
What more mainstream corroboration can you get, but a pronouncement by Gore in his now famous speech about the “Unitary Executive Theory” that is being espoused by the Administration and Alito.
So what follows is a quick summary that will mostly be copy/pastings. My motivation for posting this blog is to see if anyone has some good research on this ideology(as well as whether or not this ideology finds its’ roots in the third reich). If you could share it I’d appreciate it much.
The long and the short of it: 1.At the least this theory means that the president can issue line-item vetoes as he sees fit during signing and exercise complete control over any and all agencies within the executive(he could control every aspect of the pentagon, CIA, homeland security, INS, IRS, GAO, etc.)
2.At the extreme this philosophy justifies the executive branch being the only entity entitled to enact judicial review on the executive.
Point number 1 makes the legislation subservient and point number 2 makes the judiciary subservient. If a group can start with point one and gradually institute point 2 then they can create a totalitarian state relatively quickly.
The following 2 quotes are taken from Wikipedia. THe first is Wikipedia’s description of the Bush administrations evidence of connections to this ideology. The second is a quote from Alito.
QUOTE
“This administration seems to interpret the theory more extreme than the previous ones. As for what specific constitutional limitations on the judicial power President Bush may have in mind, there is heavy speculation that it relates to Professor John Yoo’s position that the use of military force is, like presidential vetoes and pardons, an unreviewable matter.
President George W. Bush has applied the theory of the “unitary executive” in many of his decisions, most significantly in relation to its substantive element. Per the Presentment Clause, the President must sign any bill having passed Congress before that bill becomes law; the Bush Administration has often issued Signing statements to legisation signed by the President, detailing how the executive branch will construe the law.
For instance, in his statement announcing his signing H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, President Bush wrote:
The executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of the Act, including sections 408, 616, 621, 633, and 1343(b), that purport to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international organizations, or other entities abroad or which purport to direct executive branch officials to use the U.S. voice and vote in international organizations to achieve specified foreign policy objectives. Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President’s constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch. In effect, Bush stated that when it comes to administering the executive branch, any Congressional requirements are merely advisory. It is not unusual for a president to release such a signing statement when he has concern as to how a bill he is signing into law will be interpreted in later court cases. Sceptics point out that he in effect uses them as line item veto although the Supreme Court already held the line item vetoes as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
In another signing statement that has garnered controversy, President Bush wrote:
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005. One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody:
“The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” Since, under the “Unitary Executive” theory, the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law, the President has with that statement reserved the right to waive the torture ban.
The most recent example, in which the premise that any law limiting the Presidents power is unconstitutional is advanced by the Bush administration and its supporters, is the FISA controversy. In the words of former Vice President Al Gore:
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution – our system of checks and balances – was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.” An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution – an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”[5] At present, the position taken by adherents of the “unitary executive” theory, and promoted by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international.Opponents note that such a stance, resembling the Führerprinzip,is not unlike the one seen in police states. Supporters reply that it is exactly the same war power that Abraham Lincoln used to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, in the face of Copperheads who called him a dictator and sought his assassination.”
ENDQUOTE
Samuel Alito quotes:
“I think it is important to draw a distinction between two very different ideas. One is the scope of executive power. Often presidents—or occasionally presidents—have asserted inherent executive powers not set out in the Constitution. We might think of that as, you know, how big is this table, the extent of executive power. “The second question is: When you have the power that is within the prerogative of the executive, who controls the executive? “Those are separate questions. The issue of, to my mind, the concept of the unitary executive, does not have to do with the scope of executive power. It has to do with who within the executive branch controls the exercise of executive power. The theory is the Constitution says the executive power is conferred on the president” (all three made during confirmation hearings.
And the kicker…
“The Constitution makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that…. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power—the whole thing.” (The Wall Street Journal, 5 January 2006,
wikipedia
findlaw
Schumer’s questions
selected exceprts from King George
consortium news
another explanation
Selected facts/quotes
dah man KOS
Very good one, Very scary and contains info on federalist society links
References Carl Schimitt
Please tear me apart I just started learning about this 2 days ago. A whole pile of you assholes have to know WAYYY better so can you help me understand this?
I mean most United Statesians are under that impression “It can’t happen here”. I understand and accept that it can happen here, therefore we must remain ever vigilant.
But, wow….is this really the way liberty will finally be laid to rest in the United States?
Like this?
wow…
Why is Gore the only voice in the mainstream speaking this truth?
I gotta go lay down…wow…
The death of liberty will be televised.
Fascism will not come to the United States in jackboots, but instead in the form of a smiley face.
Showing posts with label alito. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alito. Show all posts
Sunday, December 03, 2006
"The States Don't Have sovereignty if its about drugs" Clause
Intro to the Supreme Court: I have little insight in to the current Supreme Court, after Rehnquist’s passing and O’Connor’s resignation things may change. Sometimes individuals get on the court and find they don’t HAVE to be loyal to the powers that put them there. This is what the court was looking like before these two events. The Bloc:Rehnquist led the bloc. He had two pets. One was named Antonin Scalia who was his Rottweiler. Ant would be overzealous in his assault for his owner Rehnquist in all the opinions. His other pet was named Clarence Thomas. Clarence was a lapdog he made sure that he was close to his owner Rehnquist at all times. So the chief justice had two rubber stamps that could be counted on come hell or high water. Kennedy often rolls thick with “The Bloc”.
The Swingers: O’Connor and Souter. These two will find themselves going between “The Bloc” and dissent. Ginsberg is often a swinger.
The Dissent:Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsberg. These individuals could be counted on most of the time when it came to protecting our constitutional rights. Even if it meant making sure the states do not violate them. These individuals were not as closely knit as “The Bloc” and could come down on different sides of an issue.
So this is how the Supreme Court made decisions….Rehnquist would decide and if the dissent couldn’t put together a coalition then…..............Rehnquist made the Supreme Court’s decision.
How does the judiciary work: The Supreme Court is like old Europe’s Kings. Their word is law. They do not speak it though; they write it in tightly woven opinions that use language and logic to create a justification for their decision. The justification must be according to binding precedent (stare decisis). So cases in the past with similar facts from courts in their jurisdiction must be abided by. The idea is to have the court move slowly and only have the power of making their word law in short controlled bursts. Just like all power it corrupts and just like all institutions it will become co-opted by the powerful. The check on what is referred to as “judicial tyranny” is the fact that decisions cannot be radical departures from precedent and that the “divine word” only comes in the short controlled bursts. The final check on this tyranny is that the court has no solvency mechanism/executive. They have no agent to carry out their will; instead they rely on the legislature and executive to abide by their decisions. The Supreme Court only makes decisions on constitutionality through its power of judicial review. Constitutional questions are the only jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The constitution is “the highest law of the land”.
A short history for context: We are in the late stages of a movement which brought tremendous progress, but failed to create a lasting victory. Our era is still the “civil rights era”. The important pieces of this “highest laws of the lands” in recent times have become the “equal protection clause”, “the supremacy clause”, and the “interstate commerce clause”.The supremacy clause states that the constitution is the highest law of the land and the Supreme Court the highest court of the land. It states that federal law supersedes state law and federal courts are supreme above state courts. The “interstate commerce clause” makes it illegal for the federal government to interfere with state sovereignty unless it involves issues of interstate commerce. The framer’s intent with this was to avoid protectionist disputes by having the federal government act as mediator in issues of interstate commerce. This is the only explicit jurisdiction of the federal government as provided by the constitution regarding the issue of state sovereignty. The equal protection clause is contained in the 14th amendment to the constitution. It states that everyone should get equal protection under the law. This is the clause that allowed the 1964 civil rights act to be legislated by the federal government. It was decided that in situations where the state is not protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens the federal government can step in. During the lead up to desegregation and the 64 civil rights act the defense of tyranny lay with the “interstate commerce clause”. It was argued that if Alabama wants to segregate its’ schools and keep Jim Crow alive then that is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. Now because courts are highly politicized institutions (although many believe they are objective and noble) the court provided justification for this denial of individual’s constitutional rights. Now there is a large amount of precedent for devolution in this ongoing “federalism” debate.
If you have seen the movie ‘the rock’ you know that Sean Connery quotes Oscar Wilde: “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”. Well in this situation “federalism is the last refuge of scoundrels”. Prejudiced individuals defended “de jure” inequality under the argument that the federal government can only intervene under the “interstate commerce clause”. When individuals like grover norquist claim that they are defending federalism the truth is they are activists working for devolution. They are the individuals who would have rejected the constitution and kept the articles of confederation. These individuals call their agenda of “devolution” federalism. There are some who will call my claim radical, but the proof is in the puddin’. The court only upholds federalism when it suits the agenda of it’s’ masters.
Bush v. Gore: 1.The Opinon “On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County…. The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari.”-The court stopped the ballot counting
“The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.Given the Court’s assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections.”-This is arguing that the ballot counting was not uniform so therefore the equal protection clause is not satisfied.
“The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. _ So. 2d, at _ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.”The Majority opinion chooses the president not out right, but de facto. With very little time left they remand the case to Florida and ask for “constitutional review” to make sure the recount abides by the equal protection clause. This is basically saying that the Supreme Court wants it out of their hands and needs to let the state handle it to have legitimacy.
2.The dissent that doesn’t try to hide its’ logic from the light of day by coating it in innocuous rhetoric m Souter “To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.”
3.The dissent that scolds the Supreme Court, Breyer “The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.”
This case was decided because the Supreme Court didn’t feel it had the jurisdiction to create a “federal chad standard”. The Supreme Court did not decide who would be president “de jure”, but by not using its power of review to create a just and fair election the Supreme Court “de facto” decided who would be president. This is also important because it contributes to the mainstream understanding of the election. In many individuals’ minds this case actually LEANT LEGITIMACY to Bush’s election because they did not fully grasp the decision and facts of the case. The final decision rests on the fact that no constitutional (equal protection clause) means are available for counting ballots so there is no way to conduct a constitutional counting of votes. Thusly…..there won’t be a counting of votes. There it is “Federalism”, exploited to support their agenda.
What we should understand is this is the tip of the iceberg. If Alito gets confirmed, then he and Roberts stay loyal to their masters then we will see “The Bloc” become 5 votes, a majority. Coupled with the recent trend of expanding executive power creates a dangerous recipe. We may have an executive out of control who will obtain rubber stamps from a fully co-opted supreme court to justify police state actions (Patriot act, NSAgate, suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc).
So I didn’t prove that the court’s recent incarnation exploits “federalism” when it serves its’ masters ends. I did prove that they use “federalism” to justify things like “Bush v. Gore”. Well it’s too god damn easy to prove it’s exploited: UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS’ COOPERATIVE
I guess there is another implicit clause in the constitution: The “States Don’t Have Sovereignty If It’s About Drugs” clause. There was also a case this year that the Supreme Court decided another medicinal marijuana case on the States Don’t Have Sovereignty If It’s About Drugs” clause. When assholes claim they are defending the framer’s intent of “the commerce clause” most of the time its another way of saying: I use “federalism” as a cover story for my agenda of devolution, I use federalism to justify any action that suits my masters’ agenda, or they are just straight racist and wish things were still “separate but equal”.
The Swingers: O’Connor and Souter. These two will find themselves going between “The Bloc” and dissent. Ginsberg is often a swinger.
The Dissent:Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsberg. These individuals could be counted on most of the time when it came to protecting our constitutional rights. Even if it meant making sure the states do not violate them. These individuals were not as closely knit as “The Bloc” and could come down on different sides of an issue.
So this is how the Supreme Court made decisions….Rehnquist would decide and if the dissent couldn’t put together a coalition then…..............Rehnquist made the Supreme Court’s decision.
How does the judiciary work: The Supreme Court is like old Europe’s Kings. Their word is law. They do not speak it though; they write it in tightly woven opinions that use language and logic to create a justification for their decision. The justification must be according to binding precedent (stare decisis). So cases in the past with similar facts from courts in their jurisdiction must be abided by. The idea is to have the court move slowly and only have the power of making their word law in short controlled bursts. Just like all power it corrupts and just like all institutions it will become co-opted by the powerful. The check on what is referred to as “judicial tyranny” is the fact that decisions cannot be radical departures from precedent and that the “divine word” only comes in the short controlled bursts. The final check on this tyranny is that the court has no solvency mechanism/executive. They have no agent to carry out their will; instead they rely on the legislature and executive to abide by their decisions. The Supreme Court only makes decisions on constitutionality through its power of judicial review. Constitutional questions are the only jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The constitution is “the highest law of the land”.
A short history for context: We are in the late stages of a movement which brought tremendous progress, but failed to create a lasting victory. Our era is still the “civil rights era”. The important pieces of this “highest laws of the lands” in recent times have become the “equal protection clause”, “the supremacy clause”, and the “interstate commerce clause”.The supremacy clause states that the constitution is the highest law of the land and the Supreme Court the highest court of the land. It states that federal law supersedes state law and federal courts are supreme above state courts. The “interstate commerce clause” makes it illegal for the federal government to interfere with state sovereignty unless it involves issues of interstate commerce. The framer’s intent with this was to avoid protectionist disputes by having the federal government act as mediator in issues of interstate commerce. This is the only explicit jurisdiction of the federal government as provided by the constitution regarding the issue of state sovereignty. The equal protection clause is contained in the 14th amendment to the constitution. It states that everyone should get equal protection under the law. This is the clause that allowed the 1964 civil rights act to be legislated by the federal government. It was decided that in situations where the state is not protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens the federal government can step in. During the lead up to desegregation and the 64 civil rights act the defense of tyranny lay with the “interstate commerce clause”. It was argued that if Alabama wants to segregate its’ schools and keep Jim Crow alive then that is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. Now because courts are highly politicized institutions (although many believe they are objective and noble) the court provided justification for this denial of individual’s constitutional rights. Now there is a large amount of precedent for devolution in this ongoing “federalism” debate.
If you have seen the movie ‘the rock’ you know that Sean Connery quotes Oscar Wilde: “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”. Well in this situation “federalism is the last refuge of scoundrels”. Prejudiced individuals defended “de jure” inequality under the argument that the federal government can only intervene under the “interstate commerce clause”. When individuals like grover norquist claim that they are defending federalism the truth is they are activists working for devolution. They are the individuals who would have rejected the constitution and kept the articles of confederation. These individuals call their agenda of “devolution” federalism. There are some who will call my claim radical, but the proof is in the puddin’. The court only upholds federalism when it suits the agenda of it’s’ masters.
Bush v. Gore: 1.The Opinon “On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County…. The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari.”-The court stopped the ballot counting
“The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.Given the Court’s assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections.”-This is arguing that the ballot counting was not uniform so therefore the equal protection clause is not satisfied.
“The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. _ So. 2d, at _ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.”The Majority opinion chooses the president not out right, but de facto. With very little time left they remand the case to Florida and ask for “constitutional review” to make sure the recount abides by the equal protection clause. This is basically saying that the Supreme Court wants it out of their hands and needs to let the state handle it to have legitimacy.
2.The dissent that doesn’t try to hide its’ logic from the light of day by coating it in innocuous rhetoric m Souter “To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.”
3.The dissent that scolds the Supreme Court, Breyer “The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.”
This case was decided because the Supreme Court didn’t feel it had the jurisdiction to create a “federal chad standard”. The Supreme Court did not decide who would be president “de jure”, but by not using its power of review to create a just and fair election the Supreme Court “de facto” decided who would be president. This is also important because it contributes to the mainstream understanding of the election. In many individuals’ minds this case actually LEANT LEGITIMACY to Bush’s election because they did not fully grasp the decision and facts of the case. The final decision rests on the fact that no constitutional (equal protection clause) means are available for counting ballots so there is no way to conduct a constitutional counting of votes. Thusly…..there won’t be a counting of votes. There it is “Federalism”, exploited to support their agenda.
What we should understand is this is the tip of the iceberg. If Alito gets confirmed, then he and Roberts stay loyal to their masters then we will see “The Bloc” become 5 votes, a majority. Coupled with the recent trend of expanding executive power creates a dangerous recipe. We may have an executive out of control who will obtain rubber stamps from a fully co-opted supreme court to justify police state actions (Patriot act, NSAgate, suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc).
So I didn’t prove that the court’s recent incarnation exploits “federalism” when it serves its’ masters ends. I did prove that they use “federalism” to justify things like “Bush v. Gore”. Well it’s too god damn easy to prove it’s exploited: UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS’ COOPERATIVE
I guess there is another implicit clause in the constitution: The “States Don’t Have Sovereignty If It’s About Drugs” clause. There was also a case this year that the Supreme Court decided another medicinal marijuana case on the States Don’t Have Sovereignty If It’s About Drugs” clause. When assholes claim they are defending the framer’s intent of “the commerce clause” most of the time its another way of saying: I use “federalism” as a cover story for my agenda of devolution, I use federalism to justify any action that suits my masters’ agenda, or they are just straight racist and wish things were still “separate but equal”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)