Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Revolution Recidivism: The Return of Admiralty Courts

If you grew up in the United States, chances are that you do not know what an Admiralty Court is. Nor will you have learned that the existence of Admiralty Courts in the Colonies is the reason we have our right to trial by Jury. You would also likely believe that the 2nd amendment exists because our founding fathers were avid hunters, but that is a topic for another blog. Admiralty courts were founded in the England many centuries ago as a way of bring law to the coastal areas of the country. Basically, it meant a judge had total power over the law, and what's more, they were incented to find in favor of the government as their pay and that of the naval officers that brought charges were base on a successful outcome for the government. It would be like a city coming up with some obscure driving law to raise money because they controlled the court system and you had no appeal, Nor was the validity of the rule subject to the people since they were left out of the process by the absence of juries. What our founding fathers didn't like about this, as with many other things, is that jurisdiction was not regional, meaning a case involving the colonies could be held in England, there were no juries, and the purpose of the court was to increase revenue to the treasury. Basically, it was not an impartial legal system. So we have the revolution and do away with such courts and we create the Bill of Rights to ensure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Now let's flash forward 231 years to the present and you will find that admiralty courts are alive and well in every department of the federal government. You see, when congress passes a law, it false to the executive branch to enforce the law. Laws are generally vague, such as having clean air, leaving the executive agency, like the EPA, to interpret the law. Under that law, the agency now has authority to make policy under the umbrella of the law. This too is a problem with our government, but is still not the purpose of this blog entry.
Here is the heart of the issue, and I will use our EPA example to illustrate, but this system exists across the board, suppose I own a small factory. My factory has a small smoke stack that through the manufacturing process, emits levels of ozone, sulphur, and carbon dioxide. The EPA does a survey of the air quality in your city and determines that due to the high concentration of the endangered polish dung roach in your area the level of sulphur must be much lower than the national average. Your smoke stack that was once EPA compliant is no longer compliant. The cost to install new scrubbers is high and because of hard financial times it would effectively end your business. Where do you go to make your appeal. After all, the voters didn't decide on what the levels should be. As far as you can tell, the emission levels are all determined on a whim. Much to your surprise, your appeal process must go through the very agency that is shutting you down.

You file your case within the EPA court process. Layer after layer of psuedo-courts, and the decision stands. Before your case can work itself all the way through the EPA, you have run out of money and can no longer appeal. Provided you had enough money, you would have made it through to the real courts, but they bank on you not having enough money. This seems so un-American. It is like having an argument with your neighbor over your property line, and having your neighbor try to act impartially in making the decision. It seems so un-American because it is un-American. This principal is what was put down 230 years ago. Our constitution has become a phrase in the grapevine game. The further along we go as a country, the more misinterpreted it gets. What is sad is that we have the very document right at our fingertips to read, so their is no need for interpretation.

We have become what was put down. A nation that wields too much federal power. A nation of taxes and admiralty courts. A nation with a government with limits. A nation that has abdicated its heritage in favor of the special and minority (not race) interests. We have become a country's whose constitution now reads, We the nation.

Monday, May 19, 2008

When Did the Amendment Process Become Extinct

Not since 1992 have we had an amendment to the constitution, and that had to do with the grandiose topic of congressional pay. Why don't we amend the constitution anymore for things like a flat tax, defining a language, resolving citizenship, or protecting marriage. So many of these issues receive and overwhelming support from over two thirds of the people needed to ratify the amendment. There are two main reasons amendments are not pushed, but truly, they are only a result of the dilution of the supremacy of the constitution over the past 100 years.

First is the introduction of the ballot initiative. While the concept is good, enabling the citizenry to step around their elected representatives to enact legislation that serves the will of the people, it has given people a false sense of power and allowed them to forget the amendment process. The problem with ballot initiatives is that they are easily undone by the second main reason for no new amendments, the activist court. Activists courts are very quick to strike down initiatives as they did in California when they ruled in favor of Gay marriage. Once the ballot initiative is striken down, the once passionate electorate turn into a herd of sheople, as they go along with the ruling of their judicial shepards. "Those Judges know better than the rest of us. I'm glad they're here to decide on things for us little brains."

Second, as previously mentioned is the Activist Court. The sheople look at judicial decisions as pseudo ballot initiatives. Well meaning people try to force the Judiciary to take on cases that will put clarity on things otherwise thought to be open ended, like gun control. "if only the Supreme Court could have a good case before them to discuss handguns, we would finally know if the right to keep and bear arms meant something other than wearing short sleeve shirts." To the sheople, even the constitution itself is no more than something that can be swept aside by a judge.

These topics inflame so many people that feel that we are just out of luck. If the initiative fails and the court decides, then we are just screwed. Our Forefathers were much smarter than us. They gave us amendments. Amendments are what ballot initiatives want to be. Amendments are our way to shove it in the judiciaries face. "What, you think Bill and Ted should be married? Didn't you see the 28th amendment: The government shall recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman as created from birth. So you don't think I can carry my .357 magnum around. Didn't you see the 29th amendment: No seriously, you really do have the right to keep and bear arms (as in guns), and you don't have to register them. What's that you are saying, I'm sorry I don't speak Spanish. Didn't you see the 30th Amendment: The government recognizes English as the official language of the United States. All business and documents, including ballots and voter registration, shall be provided only in English. It could go on and on. We were given the power, we have just forgotten how to use it.

Link to Colloquy Society Meeting

Tired of talk radio or talking to yourself, join the Colloquy Society.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Media's Double Standard. How to Decode

A year or so ago, Bobby Jindal, an Indian American (not that I care, but it is important later) won the governorship of Louisiana, a seat formerly held by a Democrat. This is to say that Bobby is a Republican. Several things are important here. First of all, Bobby won the governorship from a Democrat, despite all the reported negative marks for Republicans at the time. Second, he won the governorship in Louisiana, a state that was devastated from Hurricane Katrina, which by media reports Katrina was caused by George Bush and other Republicans. Third, he is a successful, conservative, NON-WHITE Republican. All of these things never made it to the headlines. I remember watching and reading the news when he was elected and I could never figure out what party he was part of. Normally such things are listed, but in this case, it was suspiciously missing. I had to do my own research to figure out that he was indeed a Republican. Obviously the media did not want to common sheeple to realize such an event occurred.

Now I scan the news and the headline all over yahoo is that Democrat Cazayoux wins congressional seat in Louisiana. It is so important that you know a Democrat won that they make sure it is the first word in the headline. I read the story and apparently this person won a seat held by Republicans since 1974. This is certainly not more significant than Jindal's victory. Apparently his Republican challenger only raised half the funds as Cazayoux and had he had a controversial past, and it was just a narrow victory at that. I believe the headline should say "Democrat narrowly wins seat in a should be easy victory."
What I would now like to offer is how to decode the beliefs and ethnicity's of those in the news. I have provided my decoder ring below:

  1. If you see a person of non-white race win an election and his or her party is not mentioned, then they are a Republican.

  2. If you see a politician in some sort of legal or ethical trouble and his or her party is not mentioned, then they are a Democrat.

  3. If a person commits a crime, especially something really bad like a mass shooting, and their race or ethnicity is not offered in the story (something important if they are still on the loose), then they are of a non-white ethnicity.