prakapovich | Entries tagged with constitution

Учитывая, что в Америке есть Конституция и не все ещё сдержки и противовесы разломаны вандалами из BLM, BDS и DEI
...
(via xaxam)
https://xaxam.livejournal.com/1922055.html

Продолжает изучать дивный новый мир трамповских "успехов", начало здесь. На сей раз обсудим отношение нашего героя к Конституции.

Итак, республиканцы нам десятилетиями рассказывали, как "леваки" разрушали Конституцию, due process, про то, что в Конституции левакам "категорически не нравится". Помните Арбата еще буквально месяц-два назад?

И вот... произошло необъяснимое. Трамп на днях давал интервью и его спросили:
"Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States?"
"Do citizens and non-citizens deserve due process. Do you agree Mr president?"

Согласитесь - это не сложные вопросы. Это не был режим сложных дебатов, его никто не припирал к стенке, о нет. Это было весьма комфортное интервью для него, оно было согласованым, он дал добро конкретному интервьюеру, он вообще мог сказать все что ему угодно и КАК УГОДНО.

( Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States? )

Арбат пробует объяснить почему антиковидные мандаты Байдена антиконституционные.
Давайте на секунду забудем о форме. "Мандаты" - это та еще вещь, копни их поглубже и окажется что все эти "мандаты".... это рекомендации добровольного характера. Именно поэтому их даже судить поначалу было нельзя. "Указ" даже не был опубликован. Давайте по сути.

Итак что предлагает Арбат.

( Многа букав. )

Сразу бросается в глаза что это не обсуждение конституционности. В лучшем случае - рассуждения о целесообразности, типа "мы пробовали и отсюда быстро пришли к ...". Это не возражение, оно не юридично, на нем не построишь защиту в суде. Конституционность - это прежде всего возражение основанное на БУКВЕ Конституции. Не на целесообразности, правильности, плохих последствиях и чего то там еще что предлагает Арбат. С Конституции должно все начинаться.

Считаю Арбату надо помочь, человек то хороший.

Итак:
Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Ваше тело - это ваша property. Кто им владеет кроме вас? Гавернмент? Нет - такого power у него нет. Вакцина нарушает 5 поправку, ибо FED не считает ваше тело полностью вашей собственностью, а настаивает на его принудительной вакцинации для "блага кого то еще". Конституция индивидуалистична, не предусматривает лишения ПРАВ ни для кого, какие бы БЛАГА, мнимые или настоящие, третьим лицам это не сулило.

Т.е ни вакцины, ни лагеря для антиваксеров (как в Австралии), ни локдауны (фактически - домашний арест) - совершенно точно не конституционны.

Но это "without due process of law". Что это за зверь?
1. Они (легислатура) могут принять поправку - и тогда это будет конституционно.

2. Они могут привести вас в суд и предоставить присяжным док-ва, что вы заразили какого то человека. И таким образом ваше тело поедет в тюрьму и принадлежать вам в полной мере уже не будет - оно будет ограничено в передвижении

3. Они могут взять вашу тушку еще ДО суда, если будут весомые основания в преступлении и по распоряжению судьи. Это кстати так и называется в юриспруденции "иметь тушку" - habeas corpus:
"The literal meaning of habeas corpus is "You shall have the body"—that is, the judge must have the person charged with a crime brought into the courtroom to hear what he's been charged with."

Вот и все.
Как видим, все просто.

Любая деятельность в Америке - лицензируема. Т.е это не ваше право, например, заниматься бизнесом, это лицензия. За лицензию надо платить. Подтверждено верховным судьей каунти.

"The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce sued the city months later over the tax in December, arguing it infringed on an employees' right to earn a living or a principle the state supreme court ruled as unconstitutional in the 1952 case Cary vs. Bellingham. King County Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts disagreed.

In her ruling, Roberts determined the tax applied to employers, not employees. She wrote that, while Jumpstart Seattle was a valid excise tax on the "privilege of doing business," it was not the court's intent to rule on the wisdom of the tax.

"The payroll expense tax is an excise tax measured by payroll expenses and paid by business with employees in the City," Roberts wrote. "Employees do not pay the tax. The court concludes that the payroll expense tax is a permissible tax on the privilege of doing business.""

https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/judge-upholds-seattle-amazon-tax-on-big-business/

Джеймс Мэдисон ("отец Конституции", ее собственно и написавший), безусловно ключевая фигура в американской истории. Как то Том Вудс задал Мichael Malice вопрос: отцы основатели действительно не подозревали что они творят, или это все ж таки в некоторый степени было преднамеренно? Теперь то мы знаем ответ: они прекрасно понимали что делают и не питали особых иллюзий по поводу того как и кто будет пользоваться этой Конституцией. Сами же и будут, сами же если понадобится и нарушат. Т.е именно те самые люди кот. и принимали и ставили свои подписи на бумаге....

Если коротко:

1. отмена the freedom of speech Конгрессом перед войной с Англией.

2. Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson. Конституция не дает право федералам, на покупку чего либо.

И вот наконец - глыба, глыбище:

Джеймс Мэдисон, один из самых стойких сторонников слабого и ограниченного федерального правительства, выступал за включение девятой поправки в билль о правах, которая установила, что люди имеют права, превышающие то, что указано в первых восьми поправках, и что правительство «Не должно» их сокращать.

И все же, всего лишь поколение спустя, Мэдисон использовал тот же правительственный аппарат для призыва гражданского населения с целью организации наземного вторжения в Канаду, которое с самого начала было катастрофой. Когда мэр Новой Англии договорился о прекращении войны, Мэдисон, несмотря на почти полное возражение населения страны, обвинил мэра в измене. Суд единогласно отклонил обвинение Мэдисон.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/no_author/the-curious-case-of-the-united-states

“You can’t do it by executive order, unless you’re a dictator,” Biden declared, adding “We’re a democracy, we need consensus.”

Fast forward to the first day of Biden’s presidency.

The guy implemented NINETEEN executive actions.

Before the first week of his presidency was over, Biden had signed THIRTY-SEVEN executive actions.

Despite the apparent fact that Biden doesn’t even know what he’s signing, he has already put pen to paper on more than three times as many orders as the previous four Presidents COMBINED.

In their first weeks Trump signed four, Obama signed five, George W. Bush signed none, and Bill Clinton signed one.

Indeed, no other President has ever signed as many orders as Biden, according to The American Presidency Project at the University of California Santa Barbara.

So, Joe… In your own words, what does that make you?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remember-when-joe-biden-said-you-cant-legislate-executive-orders-unless-youre-dictator

Look at how allowing the courts to arbitrate the Constitution has enormously expanded, NOT constrained, the malignant and uncontrolled growth of government on all levels, and all "branches", of our society and economy everywhere.
The constitution was intended primarily as a RESTRAINT on government, not a vehicle for indefinite expansion and eventual despotism.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MYFYflRec70/

So, since Biden is a constitutionalist—

He must not support Medicaid.
He must not support foreign aid.
He must not support federal gun-control laws.
He must not support federal aid to education.
He must not support federal student loans.
He must not support the federal war on drugs.
He must not support AMTRAK.
He must not support the Department of Energy.
He must not support Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
He must not support federal subsidies to art and culture.
He must not support Medicare.
He must not support federal anti-discrimination laws.
He must not support the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
He must not support federal funding to combat climate change.
He must not support federal farm subsidies.
He must not support federal regulation.
He must not support the Department of Education.
He must not support food stamps.
He must not support the Department of Agriculture.
He must not support Social Security.
He must not support federal subsidies for scientific and medical research.
He must not support the federal ban on organ sales.
He must not support federal funding for space exploration and research.
He must not support the Export-Import Bank.
He must not support federal home loans.
He must not support federal unemployment benefits.
He must not support restricting Americans’ travel to Cuba.
He must not support the Small Business Administration (SBA).
He must not support Section 8 housing vouchers.
He must not support the Department of Health and Human Services.
He must not support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
He must not support the postal monopoly on first-class mail.
He must not support the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
He must not support Obamacare.
He must not support Pell Grants.
He must not support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
He must not support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
He must not support federal price gouging laws.
He must not support the Department of Health and Human Services.
He must not support the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.
He must not support the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
He must not support the Department of Labor.
He must not support federal job training programs.
He must not support the federal minimum wage.
He must not support the National Flood Insurance Program.
He must not support the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
He must not support the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
He must not support the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
He must not support NPR.
He must not support the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
He must not support federal grants to Planned Parenthood.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/laurence-m-vance/i-am-so-glad-that-joe-biden-is-a-constitutionalist

В этой статье много всего интересного, например как FDR втянул США в войну с Германией. Но вот самое интересное:

I have to provide my students with my own example: the classic case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The Court here decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use on his own property did in fact fall under the heading of "interstate commerce" and thus was subject to federal regulation. Homegrown wheat, in the Court's words, "supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Homegrown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce." What can one say?

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-fdr

1. The Lochner era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

2. There were two issues that the Republicans feared would bring judicial invalidation of their legislation. One was Reconstruction and the other was legal tender. Reconstruction placed the Southern states that had joined the Confederacy under a military occupation so draconian that congressional leaders feared the court would invalidate it. Thus they enacted legislation that withdrew the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over Reconstruction and reduced the number of justices by attrition from the fluctuating nine and sometimes 10 down to a permanent and fixed seven. The latter prevented Johnson from replacing retiring justices unless the court’s membership fell to six.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/court-packing-history-andrew-napolitano

Что то подобное я всегда подозревал, но реальность превзошла даже мои ожидания:

1. верховный суд - a total innovation and fabrication dreamed up by Chief Justice John Marshall

2. его действия не должны распространяться на кейсы: "гражданин vs государство". Сам не поверил своим глазам, пока не перечитал 3 Статью:

"Recognizing this, the authors of the Constitution created the Court as a body designed to address only conflicts between states, or between individuals of different states. In other words, it was supposed to head off conflicts that could lead to crises between state governments; it was designed to prevent wars between states."

Ну и конечно всхлипы "консерваторов" по поводу безвозвратно покинувшего нас гения Скалиа - бредятина чистой воды. Просто невозможно в здравом уме воспринимать все judicial review Верховного Суда. Все это служит одному: "the Court serves an essential role in augmenting the power of the other branches of the federal government." И Скалиа верно стоял на страже этого бреда:

With the expected eulogies for Scalia among his supporters, we’re being berated with the idea that Scalia was an “originalist” who stuck doggedly to the clear text of the Constitution as imagined by its authors. In truth, Scalia was no originalist, since, if he had been one, he would have rejected the whole notion of judicial review, which is itself a total innovation and fabrication dreamed up by Chief Justice John Marshall. Absolutely nowhere does Article III of the Constitution (the part that deals with the court, and is half a page long) give the court the power to decide on what can be legal or not in every state, town, village or business of the United States. Moreover, as Jeff Deist notes today, the Court’s powers we so blithely accept as fait accompli are mostly made up:

The concept of judicial review is a fabrication by the Court, with no basis in Article III.
Constitutional jurisprudence is not constitutional law.
The Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts: it is not supreme over other branches of government.
Congress plainly has constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts.

https://mises.org/wire/abolish-supreme-court

Moreover, the "dollar" was not an arbitrary term at the time the Constitution was drafted. In the late 18th century, everyone knew what the "dollar" referred to: the silver Spanish milled dollar, which was in widespread use in the United States. The Constitution twice refers to the dollar — in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (a clause that everyone understood to involve a tax on the import of slaves), and in the Seventh Amendment (which protected the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving at least twenty dollars).

If the dollar had been something that Congress could manipulate at will, or if "dollar" had been merely a generic term to refer to whatever Congress should arbitrarily choose to recognize as currency, the South would never have accepted that clause — or the Constitution itself. Congress might have manipulated the dollar so as to make the tax on slave imports prohibitively expensive. It could also have effectively abolished trial by jury in civil cases by making twenty "dollars" an astronomically high amount of money.

mises.org/library/great-gold-robbery-1933