One of the intents of the Constitution was the protection of certain rights, but without the supplement of the Bill of Rights as a more specific enumeration protecting certain rights, the Constitution would not have been ratified. What is not included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the right to occupy public or private property, the disregard of local laws and ordinances, and most certainly the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes best explained the boundaries and limits of rights: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

The very name Occupy Wall Street, and this arbitrary and pedestrious league of misfits’ very purpose for existence, belies constitutional protection. The very action of occupying and setting up permanent encampments on public and private property, violating local ordinances and regulations, replete with myriad felonies, wholesale disregard for public safety, the blatant violation of the rights of others, is simply not reconcilable with the 1st Amendment’s…Congress shall make no law respecting…or abridging the freedom of speech…the right of the people peaceably to assemble….

The right to freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble were never intended to be absolute, and the Supreme Court has likewise never ruled either as an absolute right. In Hague v. C.I.O. (1939), the Supreme Court made clear that streets and sidewalks were in fact public forums, and thus protected. In 1937, the Jersey City Mayor, Frank Hague, under the guise of a 1930 city ordinance forbidding the gatherings of groups that advocated obstruction of the government by unlawful means, ordered the police department to shut down a meeting at the Committee for Industrial Organization, and to seize all materials. C.I.O. sued, arguing that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment’s freedom of assembly.

The Supreme Court, by virtue of the 1st and 14th Amendments, struck down laws and ordinances requiring permits for speech and assemblies on streets, parks, and other public forums as discriminatory, as it was up to the discretion of the government who would or would not be granted a permit.

On July 8, 1939, in a much more subdued and benign exercise of the their 1st Amendment rights than the Occupy Wall Street’s boisterous assault upon cities across the U.S., 68 Jehovah’s Witnesses marched through the town of Manchester, New Hampshire carrying signs and blocking foot traffic on public sidewalks. This was in violation of a New Hampshire statute requiring a license for parades and processions. All 68 were convicted in municipal court for violating the state statute. The Jehovah’s Witnesses sued the state of New Hampshire for violating their freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. In the resulting Supreme Court case, Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the court ruled that even though the government cannot regulate the content of speech or the right to peaceably assemble, the government can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on these 1st Amendment rights for public safety concerns. After Cox v. New Hampshire, governments were allowed, by requiring the acquisition of permits, to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of public property.

Forty-five years later, the right of the government to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public property was reaffirmed with Clark v. Community for Creative Non-violence (1984). As with the Occupy Wall Street philistines, to bring attention to the homeless, the C.C.N.V. wanted to “occupy” Lafayette Park and the Washington, D.C. Mall by setting up tent encampments. The Park Service granted the C.C.N.V. a permit to demonstrate and to setup a few symbolic tents, but denied their request to make an all-encompassing encampment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Park Service regulation did not violate the 1st Amendment rights of C.C.N.V. The court also made clear that even expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and reaffirmed that the government can regulate speech and assembly with permits, fees, and imposing restrictions on time, place, and manner to ensure public safety and to protect the rights of others.

The Occupy Wall Street and its incarnation’s fundamental animus–when one can be discerned–are contrary to 70+ years of Supreme Court precedent regarding 1st Amendment rights. The movement has purposely blocked sidewalk traffic, street traffic, damaged local businesses and other forms of commerce, blocked access to commercial and residential buildings, and nurtured disease, crime, and the systematic violation of the rights of businesses and residences in their immediate area. It would take an implausible stretch of the imagination to believe that these acts would be protected forms of speech, expression, or peaceable assembly by established 1st Amendment standards. This group of intellectual, moral, and wayward vagabonds setting up permanent encampments on public property, straining the limits of their immediate ecological, societal, and economical environments, is exactly what it appears to be: a group of intellectual, moral, and wayward vagabonds living on public property, and through unadulterated ignorance, they actually believe that their 1st Amendment rights protect the infringement upon the rights of others, destruction of their immediate environment, commission of economic terrorism, rape, sexual assault, theft, drug dealing, drug use, prostitution, pimping underage girls, urinating and defecating on public and private property, and public fornication.

What is astonishing on multi-levels regarding the cities being occupied is the deliberate and voluntary lack of mandated action by the representative leaders to enforce each city’s laws and ordinances without prejudice. Each city has its own group of legislators, be it commissioners, councilmen, or mayors who are elected to create legislation but also to enforce the laws and ordinances of their city uniformly.

What is not astonishing is the paradox of Occupy Wall Street’s perambulatory anarchy and chaos—which by its very definition, seeks the elimination of laws, rights, and governmental and court enforcement—and their instantaneous wailing and writhing about in their excrement and urine saturated, apocryphal sanctuaries regarding the violation of their 1st Amendment rights. But as with all fraudulent movements coveting desultory demands, unsystematic protests devoid of substance, constructive ideas, or a plausible reason to exist, Occupy Wall Street is rapidly etiolating under the most unceremonious of conditions: a dramatic drop in a relevancy that never existed, the exodus of the liberal media and its ephemeral infatuation, and like vultures over dried bones, the calculated disassociation by liberal politicians once political expediency ceased to exist.

It is entirely plausible that with its micro-existence, its inanimate legitimacy, and its annulling impact, in one year’s time, Occupy Wall Street’s impact never breached the azoic phase, and thus the question could be asked: did the movement ever really exist, or was it just a spontaneous and promiscuous occurrence of rapes, murders, arrests, prostitution, and drugs, mired in feces and urine?

There are myriad differences that differentiate and separate countries, nations, and societies. The adherence to the rule of law is one of the primary instruments that protects nations from the subjugation of anarchy, and ultimately a vacuum devoid of civility. Also antithetical to the rule of law is the rule of man. There are various examples of nations led by the rule of men rather than the rule of law: Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein. A society must have laws that are obeyed by everyone, spanning from the leader to the lowliest citizen. Under the rule of law, a society can prevail; without adherence to the rule of law, anarchy will prevail.

Searching for the categorically correct words to best characterize Barack Obama and his lawless performance as President of these United States is a simple venture, actually. By simply using the calculus of the aggregate of the preponderance of the prevarications caused by the pathological infirmity that prohibits Obama from telling the truth, even under the most benign circumstances, and the blatant and malevolent disregard of the foundational principles of this country, the United States Constitution, and the rule of law, several characterizations come to mind. With an abundance of empirical and substantive evidence from his rhetoric, actions, and policies, “racketeer,” “scofflaw,” and “malefactor” are the most generous and humane descriptions available. For Barack Obama, when compared to the first president of this country, “indecent” is a well-suited characterization as well.

Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that what he cannot accomplish legally, he will circumvent with mechanisms of subterfuge. This has been Obama’s default modus operandi if he cannot have his way. Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, an active federal law, has decided to enforce the Cap and Trade Act, which is not a law, as it has never been approved by Congress, and has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the fundamentals of this non-existent law. These laws were either created or repealed by the Executive Branch by calculated lawlessness and empirical fiat. Obama has implemented the Dream Act via the same dictatorial mechanics. The Dream Act is not a law and should not be enacted by Obama’s criminal savoir-faire. There are myriad federal immigration laws that Obama is legally compelled to enforce, yet he has by executive order ratified the Dream Act, and circumvented and disregarded existing legitimate laws.

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) was first proposed in the legislation during the 107th Congress in 2001-2003, tried again in the 108th Congress in 2003-2005, tried again in the 109th Congress in 2005-2007, tried again in the 110th Congress in 2007-2009, and tried again in the 112th Congress in 2011-2013. It was never in the remotest danger of passing.

For ten years this preposterous act has been defeated. There is one reason the DREAM Act has been so persistently pushed by each Congress: is it is pregnant with progressive politics, ideology, and is a quantifiable vote purchasing mechanism for the Left.

The fundamentals of the DREAM Act for illegal aliens are thus:

• Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e., 15 and younger)
• Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
• Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e., college/university)
• Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
• Have registered with the Selective Service if male
• Must have good moral character

The first two provisions listed would be problematic to ascertain their validity, which would cause dubiety and void the next three provisions, but it is the very last and fractionally subjective provision that is a self-fulfilling prophecy for bad character: discounting an anemic defense of moral relativism, possessing a “good moral character” and breaking the law by living in this country unlawfully, using fake documents to gain employment and access to public services, is mutually exclusive of a “good moral character.”

Obama cryptically tried to cloak his passing the DREAM Act, in direct violation of the rule of law, and with lawless abandon, by executive fiat on a Friday afternoon news dump.

There is something eerily familiar between Obama’s directive to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the DREAM Act.

The dictator-esque directive that usurped the rule of law and rewrote the rules of deporting an illegal alien now considers…

• The circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States
• Whether they are in high school or college
• Whether they have served or are serving in the military
• Particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child
• The person’s pursuit of education
• Whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military

Barack Obama has given prosecutorial discretion to I.C.E. agents to determine whether or not to deport an illegal alien. The only provision missing from the detained is a sworn affidavit attesting that he/she will vote for the Democratic Party if ever granted citizenship.

Perspective: This is the equivalent of a mayor of Anycity, U.S.A. granting the municipal police department the ability to determine if they want to arrest a perpetrator committing felony A, B, or C. They could be required to ask them a few innocuous questions about high school diplomas, whether their dad served in the military, how long they have lived here, and lastly, ask them if they are of good moral character, then release them back into society at their discretion. Complete prosecutorial discretion in the field, which under U.S. law is reserved for prosecuting attorneys, violates the very core of the rule of law.

Prosecutorial discretion is also mathematically incoherent. Roughly 7,500 people cross our borders each day. The Border Patrol has 20 sectors, with 9 on the southern borders. If they could stop and interrogate just these 7,500 illegals per day, that would be 7,500 hundred prosecutorial discretion decisions made each day primarily in just 9 sectors for an agency with approximately 20,000 agents covering the entire country. This does not take into consideration the approximate 20,000,000 living here illegally. Obama’s executive order is not only breaching the rule of law, but dismisses the mathematical and logical fact that any form of immigration law is completely inconsequential without securing the borders first.

To complement Obama’s confidence-game with the rule of law, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin brings a refreshing and moronic take on the Constitution. Durbin said the following during a speech at a congressional hearing to a room, apparently full of youthful illegal aliens, after asking the young scofflaws to stand if they were undocumented: “When I look around this room, I see America’s future, our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our congressmen, our senators, and maybe our president.”

Unfortunately for the under-uneducated Durbin, and the rest of the educationally challenged liberals in Congress, the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, states, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4, states, The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are serious criminal offenses, and should naturally be cause for impeachment, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not criminal offenses, nor do they exist anywhere in the U.S. criminal code. This impeachable political offense was intended to keep those of higher office morally in line. These “high crimes and misdemeanors” can only be committed by an occupant of a high office and position in the government. Abusing one’s power and violating one’s oath of office is the epitome of high crime.

Perjury was the proven charge against Bill Clinton by the House of Representatives that caused his impeachment. But periurus or perjury had a much broader meaning than its current meaning of lying under oath, as did Clinton. When the founders wrote the Constitution, perjury meant also a violation of one’s oath of office.

From the 1890 An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis: periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. This definition of perjury during the founding era would be cause for impeachment, especially if chronic, as it is directly related to those of higher office and status, who have an obligation to uphold the oath they took. Barack Obama does not need to be sworn in to commit perjury, as he took the oath of the presidency: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

High crimes and misdemeanors is an extraordinarily vast and ambiguous dominion ruled by obvious breeches. This may seem a daunting, burdensome, and unattainable task for a 21st century U.S. President, and this extraordinary standard may seem archaic and incomprehensible, but the moral, honorable, and dignified manner of the founders’ conduct and substance set the standard, and it was their moral and principled foundations that set the measure for the “high crimes and misdemeanors clause.” Barack Obama is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and be honorable and truthful in his conduct, and most importantly, to respect and abide by the rule of law. Barack Obama’s responsibility, as defined by the Constitution, is to execute this country’s laws, not adjudicate the laws he disagrees with from the Oval Office.

If the Congress faithfully abided by the Constitution’s meaning and intent of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause, Barack Obama would have been bounced out of the White House a long time ago, and sent back to Chicago’s iniquitous political abyss.

The greatness of this country, and the core of its exceptionalism, is adhering to the rule of law. Almost the entirety of this country’s shortcomings, failures, setbacks, digressions, and transgressions can be attributed to two things: violating the rule of law, and twisting and forcing meanings from the Constitution that do not exist.

The remedy would be to follow the rule of law: Congress faithfully writes the laws within the parameters of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Executive Branch signs or vetoes the laws presented by Congress, and dutifully executes the laws, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the laws.

The crime:

Humberto Leal was brought to the U.S. illegally in 1975 at the age of two. He had presented himself as an American citizen his entire life. In 1994, he raped and killed 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. She was found naked by authorities. Leal had sexually violated her with a 15-inch long stick with a screw at the end. The stick was used while she was alive. Leal then bashed in her skull with a 40-pound rock twice the size of her head, then fled, leaving the bloody and broken stick inside her. Leal confessed before he was formally arrested.

This isn’t Texas’ first rodeo with executing illegal aliens for killing its citizens, and having to deal with a meddlesome President, the International Court of Justice, or a foreign country attempting to obstruct the Texas judicial system. The spurious attempts by the International Court of Justice and a U.S. President have been repeatedly repelled by the Supreme Court from interfering with a state carrying out its criminal process over an impotent and extraneous treaty.

The International Court of Justice derives its jurisdiction from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. Disputes “shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” according to the Vienna Convention. The International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of one of the most unethical, corrupt, and knavish organizations in the world, the United Nations. Liberals and progressives would prefer nothing more than to transfer our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. and in a judicial capacity, be under the control of an organization pregnant with nefarious third world countries that dominate the U.N. The consequences would be innumerable. Our federal and state laws would be subjected and subordinated to the malignant ideology that infects the U.N. and its various tentacles, including the International Court of Justice.

The “compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” was tested against the United States with the case The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America. The court held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors. The court awarded judgment against the U.S. and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua. The United States objected, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that the court is a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.” The court countered that the United States was subject to its jurisdiction. Then Ronald Reagan took action. The United States then announced that it had “decided not to participate in further proceedings in this case.” Then, on January 18, 1985, the United States withdrew from the International Court of Justice with these parting words: “the court lacks jurisdiction and competence.” And in 2005, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol, neutering the International Court of Justice of jurisdiction in consular cases.

The issue is that Humberto Leal was never given the chance to speak with a Mexican consul. The police never asked if he wanted to speak with one. But, perhaps the arresting officers were afraid or forbidden to ask if he is a Mexican national. If he looks Mexican, and they ask, they are racists. This would be, in the world of liberals, progressives, the U.N., etc., racial profiling and not only illegal, but offensive. This is the foundation of every lawsuit filed by Mexico and Barack Obama against states, such as Arizona’s immigration laws giving law enforcement the ability to ascertain someone’s legal status. To follow the illogical logic of Mexico and the liberals, asking if one is a Mexican national is racist and considered profiling, and not asking by virtue of law, and thus denying a Mexican national the right to speak with the Mexican consulate, is a violation of international law. This is very apropos for liberal logic.

Barack Obama, being severely constitutionally challenged, and in the habit of abhorring states’ rights, decided to intervene in Texas’ criminal law and the pending execution of Humberto Leal by sending his Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. to join Leal’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The plea before the court was as bizarre, unorthodox, and sophomoric as Barack Obama’s leadership adroitness. Obama’s Justice Department did not ask for a legal ruling, did not present a constitutional claim, but requested that the court stay the execution of Humberto Leal until Congress could actually pass a law that would presumably give them legal justification to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court. Congress has failed to pass the legislation twice, and the prospect of Congress handing over a substantial piece of our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

The Supreme Court unceremoniously rejected the case in a per curiam 5-4 decision.

The majority opinion of the court regarding Obama’s kooky request:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be. We decline to follow the United States’ suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success. The United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Convention violation. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President, “presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The foundation of Barack Obama’s Justice Department’s argument was thus: hey, perhaps sometime in the future, maybe around January 2012, or maybe even before, heck who knows, Congress might pass legislation, that it has refused to pass twice before, that would give us “future jurisdiction to review the judgment in a proceeding.” But even though we haven’t really thought about the fact that if this legislation passed, it probably would not have any effect on his conviction anyway since the violation did not prejudice the verdict, we feel we should waste the court’s time with possible laws of the future we may want to argue, sort of the same principle with law as with cryonic science and medicine, let’s just freeze it until there is a plausible remedy, then resurrect it.

Leal’s attorney, Sandra Babcock, argued that with the assistance of a Mexican consul, her client could prove his innocence. Even if protocol had been followed and Leal had been in contact with the Mexican consulate, he had already incriminated himself before being arrested and read his Miranda Rights, and the consulate could not have made, as in Mexico, the evidence that convicted Leal disappear. The Supreme Court made clear that speaking with a Mexican consul would not have stopped his being convicted, and the Justice Department never broached that argument. Humberto Leal’s due process was never questioned, nor the evidence against him, and he was afforded every legal remedy available after his conviction, including 16 years of appeals and legal wrangling. One Federal District Court judge called it “one of the most procedurally convoluted and complex habeas corpus proceedings” he ever reviewed.

Preceding the appeal to the Supreme Court, the court had ruled on two very similar cases. Medellín v. Texas was a United Supreme Court Case regarding Texas’ pending execution of José Ernesto Medellín. Medellín took part in the gang rape and murder of two Texas girls, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old. President George Bush wanted to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice that found the conviction of Medellín had violated his rights. Justice Roberts wrote for the court, “Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon in 2006 weighed strongly on the Medellín case because the State of Oregon did not have to exclude evidence in violation of the Vienna Convention.

As in the plead to the Supreme Court regarding foreign policy consequences, if Leal’s execution was not stayed, the Obama administration, in its continuance of fear mongering, fears other nations may retaliate against U.S. citizens by denying their rights to an American consul in retaliation if Texas is allowed to follow its laws. The same argument was employed with Sanchez-Llama v. Oregon in 2006 by the Bush administration, and again with Medellín v. Texas in 2008. Not one retaliatory act by a foreign government has been committed against an American citizen as the result of either state executing its laws. In a statement that is as detached from reality as Obama’s Supreme Court plea, Ricardo Alday from the Mexican Embassy stated, “Another execution of a Mexican national in direct violation of international law would undoubtedly affect public opinion in Mexico, undermining support for a constructive and forward-leaning bilateral relationship.” Perhaps it will have such an impact on public opinion in Mexico that the citizens of Mexico will abstain from sneaking across the border in to the U.S. Perhaps, also, Mr. Alday is unaware of the travel warning issued April 22, 2011 by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, stating, “The Department of State has issued this Travel Warning to inform U.S. citizens traveling to and living in Mexico about the security situation in Mexico….the security situation poses serious risks for U.S. citizens…” et cetera. Clarified: Go to Mexico and the probability of being kidnapped and losing your head are relatively high.

Illegal aliens, their apologists, and the liberals who believe that illegals deserve the right to be treated the same as United States citizens just got their wish. Humberto Leal was treated explicitly as any United States citizen would have been treated who was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and exhausted his appeals.

Humberto Leal confessed before his arrest, and just before he died. His last words were, “I have hurt a lot of people. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this. I am sorry and forgive me, I am truly sorry.” He then blurted, “Viva Mexico!” But Texas’ justice had the last words: “Don’t Mess With Texas” and “Viva Texas!”

My enlightenment was precipitated by a Jazz Shaw article on Hotair.com. Shaw zeroed in on the ensuing excerpt from an interview CNN’s Wolf Blitzer conducted with Cain, but the underlying animus by Shaw was the unveiling of Cain’s oddball ideology or his sophomoric inability to operate at the elite political level, and thus misspoke:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Blitzer’s incredulous reaction can only leave one to believe Blitzer believed he caused Cain to commit self indictment as a maniacal right-winger, and Shaw furtively seized upon it. Shaw displayed and noted at the end of his article a comment by one Doug Mataconis, an attorney who blogs for Pajamas Media:

Now, it’s possible, as Jazz Shaw suggests, that Cain simply misspoke under Blitzer’s rapid fire barrage. The other possibility, though, is that he’s one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who rejects the entire idea that the Federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. Ron Paul believes this, and it’s one reason I’m not entirely a fan of his. Is this Cain’s position? Does he believe that, not just the 2nd, but also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments shouldn’t apply to the states? Some clarification on this issue would be most helpful.

Shaw and Matoconis both agree that Cain must have misspoke from the Blitzer’s blitzkrieg questioning. But Matoconis goes further and suggests the possibility that Cain is one of “those people”; he is one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who believe in the original meaning and intent–the sanitary quotation marks imprisoning the word “Constitution” employed by Matoconis are obviously intended to mock originalists. The two pundits believe that if he did not misspeak, he is fundamentally wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Shaw and Matoconis are both disciples of bad case law, and are, indeed, themselves in the wrong. It is this jejune ideology of Shaw, Matoconis, et al. that has been complicit with the systematic extinction of the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and the sanctimoniously injudicious marriage of the fallacious judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the preposterous politically motivated court rulings incorporating the 1st eight amendments.

The truth is, Cain actually spoke the Holy Grail of constitutional law, especially if you possess the intellectual honesty and capacity to rebuke the idea that this country’s static foundation should shift in accordance with malignant case law for the sanctity of stare decisis. If Cain does not retract his statement, and continues to defend it, he would join a very elite group of people–especially politicians and jurists–that believe in, and will apply and defend the fundamentals upon which this country was founded, and be a great steward of this country’s founding document.

Herman Cain answered the question presented by Wolf Blitzer regarding the 2nd Amendment exactly as any one of the Founders would have answered. They would have soundly rejected the 14th Amendment at face value, and would have abhorred the cancerous case law incorporating the 1st eight amendments by ideological judicial/political fiat. Cain’s answer is one of the most fundamentally astute answers regarding gun control and state’s rights versus the federal government and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA, being an archetypal political body, cannot resist the forces of narcissism, and argued relentlessly against state’s rights, and indiscriminately for the right to bear arms regardless of its constitutionality. Herman Cain is not a friend of the NRA in this regard.

Two of the most damaging constitutional follies that have done irreversible harm are the federal government’s use of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the first eight amendments, and the catastrophic and felonious abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Let me explain:

There is an opaque and murky demarcation that separates conservatives and constitutionalists. Under no circumstance should conservatism and constitutionalism be considered mutually inclusive–especially regarding the Supreme Court; a conservative court is not a constitutional court and vice versa. They are two different species, but at times display similar characteristics.

The very idea of the Supreme Court deciding the fate of a city’s laws, within the boundaries of a sovereign state–especially regarding the Bill of Rights, whose only intention was to limit the power of the federal government–would have been preposterous to the men who wrote the Constitution. It was also viewed as preposterous by the authors of the Constitution that a Bill of Rights was even necessary, as all the limits upon the federal government were plainly manifested in the Constitution. The federal government did not have the authority to abridge the rights of the citizens of the 13 sovereign states. The Bill of Rights was added as a dualistic precaution preventing the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens of the states.

To understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and their intent, and not the inane ramblings of academia, iniquitous Supreme Court rulings and its debauched case law, and the nefarious transmutational acts of politicians–the very group the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people from. If the creators of the Constitution had wanted the first eight amendments applied to the states they would have stated it, but if that were the case, the Constitution would never have been ratified, and our country as we know it would not exist. Herman Cain understands this.

Every law, every rule, every dictate has a spirit, a reason for being, a purpose. The Constitution of these United States has a very clear spirit, yet through the malice of progressives, the greed of conservatives, and through unadulterated ignorance, our Constitution is engaged in a battle each and every day defending itself and its spirit. Sometimes winning, sometimes losing. Mostly losing. Herman Cain appears to grasp the spirit and original intent.

Herman Cain has stunned Wolf Blitzer, befuddled the likes of Jazz Shaw and Doug Mataconis, and probably has the entire faculty of Harvard and Yale law schools writhing on the floor gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands with the remote likelihood that this country may once again be under the auspices of the Constitution rather than politically and ideologically motivated case law.

The Supreme Court of these United States, one year ago, while determining whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the states in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, ruled that it in fact applies to the States under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. This Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been harshly criticized for being too conservative a court–and justifiably so. The court is far too conservative as witnessed by the McDonald ruling. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. Considering that all of the first eight amendments had been previously incorporated, excepting the 2nd and parts of the 4th Amendments, by politically motivated courts in the past, it would be fair to surmise the members of this court were merely servants of stare decisis and bad case law. They ruled as a conservative court would, but not as a constitutionalist court would. This court had the opportunity to eradicate thousands of spurious federal laws and reset the limits of the power of the federal government over the states back to the intended balance. Herman Cain understands this.

The 14th Amendment never intended to incorporate the first eight amendments, but ideological politicians parading around as justices started chipping away at the foundation with the 1st Amendment in the 1920s, and again stare decisis has taken the final chip out of this country’s fundamental governing document that spared the states from the oppressive federal government we have today. We are sovereign citizens of sovereign states under the very limited supremacy of the federal government according to the 10th and 11th Amendments, and by the dictate of the creators of this country. The very intention of the Constitution was to protect the citizens of the states from a ruling such as McDonald v. Chicago. Herman Cain understands this.

So now I know five things about Herman Cain: he is black, is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, is running for president, is not a conservative but a constitutionalist, and of all the conservatives trying to achieve the nomination Cain is the one who would have the support of the founders of this country.

Seems like just yesterday that when one nation aggressively amasses eleven U.S. naval ships, which include three submarines, two destroyers, and various sundries of amphibious and supply ships, in another nation’s sea, starts launching missiles, rockets, and whatnot at said country, dispatches fighter jets on bombing missions around said country–especially the leader of said country’s personal compound–receives return fire that downs a dispatched fighter jet, this was called a war.

Mr. Webster describes said action as thus: “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.”

But what did the authors of the Constitution mean by the word “war,” one might ask? Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755, forty years before the ratification of the Constitution. His dictionary was the pre-eminent guide to the English language until the Oxford English Dictionary was published 150 years later. The Dictionary of the English Language defined the term “war” as,”War. n.s. [werre, old Dut. guerre, Fr] War may be defined the exercise of violence under sovereign command, against withstanders; force, authority, and resistance, being the essential parts there-of.” This is what war meant in 1776.

Times have sure changed since the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama now defines military action against another country as an “overseas contingency operation,” “a kinetic military action,” “a time-limited, scope-limited military operation.” Anything and everything but a war. What if George Washington had to work with such beguiling balderdash from an impotent Continental Congress? How would the Revolutionary War have ended if the politicians during the founding era administered a lethal dose of subterfuge, fraud, and delusory discourse to Washington and the public regarding the Revolutionary War? What if the Revolutionary War was actually not a war but just a “kinetic separation exercise,” or perhaps a “colony contingency operation?” Afternoon tea anyone?

Obama, to date, has yet to cultivate a legitimate reason to have started a non-war with Libya within the guidelines of United States policy and law, nor has he produced a coherent and static legitimate reason that does not expire at the end of the day. Obama operates in that penumbra of politics that dictates that partisanship, ideology, and power will always trump principle. Not only is Obama incapable of explaining why we are bombing Libya in a non-war fashion with the remotest semblance of coherency, or what his end game is, he cannot explain why he lacked the patience to consult with Congress about launching a non-attack against Libya, but he was able to demonstrate the patience of Gandhi mid hunger strike while cooling his heels with the United Nations, backing from the Arab League, a nod from the Security Council, and just enough patience to fly to Brazil for Spring Break as this was unfolding.

Regardless of what linguistic shenanigans Barack Obama uses while employing a Three-card Monte with the American people on what constitutes war, and his licentious use of the American military at his reckless discretion, he is in the wrong for myriad reasons. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives the power to declare war to the Congress, not the President: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”

Barack Obama engaged the United States in a war with Libya, and according to three of the most highly esteemed and knowledgeable scholars of the United States Constitution, this act is unconstitutional.

In descending order of presupposed knowledge in the area of constitutional law, and in accordance with self-proclaimed scholarship of said law beyond the scope and reach of the authors of the Constitution, the three experts weigh-in on the constitutionality of not attacking Libya with a non-war.

Joe Biden will tell you he is smarter than you are. In fact, when pressured about his God-awful academic performance in law school, Joe replied, ”I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.” Joe graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School, with congruent bottom of the class achievements from both, but was only expelled from Syracuse for plagiarism, thus breaking the parallelism of his higher education. But Joe shines when speaking on matters of the Constitution. During Robert Bork’s hearing for the Supreme Court, and upon discerning that Bork was a Yale law professor, somewhere within the dark and empty caverns of Joe Biden’s brain, there was a chemical synapse heard throughout the chambers. Joe’s brain, the one organism that abandoned him in school, manifested a statement of profound and esoteric depth. Joe vociferated the following to Bork: “We have enough professors on the bench. I want someone who ran for dog catcher.”

After countless hours of study, analyzing, cogitating, and ruminating, Joe Biden, after pushing his cerebral capacity beyond the manufacturer’s stated limits, concluded the following regarding military force and the original intent of the Constitution. By Joe’s calculation, even the slightest military skirmish needed congressional approval–unless the U.S. was being attacked, of course. Joe also concluded that if a president used military power indiscriminately without a congressional thumbs-up, then the president was acting as Monarch of the United States. This was Joe’s oral precursor to introducing his bill that would limit the President’s ability to engage in military action without congressional approval. In Joe’s own words:

Congress’s responsibilities could not be clearer. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “to declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

To the President, the Constitution provides in Article II, Section 2 the role of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

It may fairly be said that, with regard to many constitutional provisions, the Framers’ intent was ambiguous. But on the war power, both the contemporaneous evidence and the early construction of these clauses do not leave much room for doubt.

In 2004, then Senator Hillary Clinton stated that she did not regret voting in 2002 to authorize military action against Iraq. She did regret the way the President used his authority, though. Fast forward to 2006, while on the presidential campaign trail, she stated that she would not have voted for military action if she knew what she knew today, but did not elaborate. When questioned by the Boston Globe during her campaign for President, Clinton stated the following:

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.

Also in 2007, regarding a what-if George Bush had used military force against Iran, she stated, “President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Barack Obama, the sensei of constitutional authority. From Harvard Law School graduate, to untitled part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, to Illinois State Senator, to United States Senator, to President, Obama has become the Zen of constitutional law–he became the law. This explanation is as plausible as others are: either he took to heart the disdain and loathing that Harvard harbors against the original meaning of the Constitution, or he really just doesn’t understand the document.

Candidate Obama was asked two questions by the Boston Globe during his presidential campaign in 2007:

The Boston Globe: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?).

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

The Boston Globe: Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

Obama: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

In October of 2002, while doing what radicals do, hanging out and speaking at an anti-war rally, Obama called the war in Iraq a dumb war. He believed it was a dumb war because using military force to remove a dictator of unsavory character is just plain dumb. He was speaking at the anti-war rally because he opposed the war in Iraq on the premise that it was dumb, and he could quite possibly pickup a few votes along the way. Iraq was never a direct threat to the United States, so giving Saddam the boot with our military was bad foreign policy and dumb. Obama’s admirable and patriotic speech at the anti-war rally:

Now let me be clear. I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.

At this juncture in their political careers, and after reading the statements regarding the president and war powers, Biden, Clinton, and Obama seem to repudiate the truth in perpetual paroxysms of prevarication. The truth is that which will only enhance their political expediency. After one week of non-war kinetic bombing of another country with our military, Obama relented to pressure to inform the American people why we are engaged in a war but not in a war. The delineation was 30 minutes in length. It happened at the National Defense University in Washington–war speeches are given from the Oval Office, and since this was a kinetic something or other, it warranted a historically non-war venue.

Parts of the speech contained Obama’s orthodox finger pointing–this is Obama’s default nuclear option: reference Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan–which was delivered in a poorly orchestrated extraneous effort. The speech was a maze of incoherent, contradictory, and sophomorically disguised nomenclatures and terminology that were scattered about and lost in the maze along with Obama’s non-point.

Here is a summation of the speech as clearly as can be presented: There was no explanation why Congress was not consulted, no explanation of our military goal, and no explanation of the end game. Ousting Qaddafi is not the goal, but Obama wants him out. The military is not there to oust or kill Qaddafi, but his personal compound was bombed, but there is no connection. This mission is not to oust Qaddafi, but it is, but not really, technically, but if he did leave, it would not be because of our bombing. Disregard what Obama said two weeks ago about deposing Qaddafi, that is not what the goal is now, but if the goal is to oust Qaddafi, that is not why we are bombing Libya, except if maybe we are attempting to oust, but that is not the goal of this kinetic something or another.

With the assumption of being immune from self-indictment, Hillary Clinton made this bizarre and delusive statement defending Obama and herself regarding the bombings and their prior statements about presidential limitations of war acts:

Well, we would welcome congressional support, but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago. I think that this had a limited time-frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling.

Obama’s razor thin veneer of a decoy for preventing the massacre of the rebels by Qaddafi was too far behind the curve for legitimacy’s sake; he will protect and bolster the innocent and covetously righteous seeking rebels that are fighting the good fight against Qaddafi. Yes, indeed they are. These rebels are fighting for the sake of…they defending against…they are rising up against…. Now who are these rebels again to whom we have committed our military? Why are we at a non-war with Libya? Hillary Clinton doesn’t know. Barack Obama doesn’t know. Joe Biden doesn’t know. The CIA doesn’t know. All that is known is that they are fighting Qaddafi. Mike Dunn, Retired Air Force General, was able to define the rebels perfectly:

It’s a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have thus far, at any rate, failed to coalesce into a meaningful military force. We’d like to think this is a group of democratic Jeffersonian type of people that just are fighting for their freedom, when in reality we don’t know a lot about them.

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, who is steadfast for this non-war, summed the rebels up nicely: the rebels are largely a mystery.

Here is what we do know about the rebels: we do know that we do not know who the rebels are; we do know that we do not know why they are fighting Qaddafi; we do know that we do not know what the outcome will be if they win; we do know that we do not know whether or not they will commit atrocities against the overthrown government and other non-rebels of Libya; we do know that we do not know if Al Qaeda is involved with the rebels; we do know that we do not know if jihadists that have fought against American troops make up some of the rebels. That much we do know.

Here is what we do know about the non-war: we do know that we unleashed a kinetic military, time-limited, scope-limited, overseas contingency non-war against Qaddafi complete with rockets, missiles, and various other things that explode because he was killing the rebels, or citizens. We do know that Qaddafi’s troopers began disguising themselves as the John Q. Publics of Libya. We do know that our beloved rebels, not being of the patient sort, starting killing all the John Q. Publics of Libya. We do know that NATO is angry about this turn of events, and told the rebels to stick with killing the designated bad guys only or NATO will start unleashing kinetic whatnots upon the rebels. We do know that NATO threatened to bomb the rebels if they kept killing citizens along with Qaddafi’s troopers parading around as citizens. We do know that if the rebels, who are citizens, keep killing the John Q. Public sector of this non-war, instead of Qaddafi’s troopers, who are dressed like citizens, who are dressed like the rebels, who are being imitated by Qaddafi’s bad guys, then NATO may be forced to give them all a taste of Kinetic…, including citizens.

During a time of war, the President should be supported. But what if the President insists he never started a war, but merely engaged in an overseas contingency operation, a kinetic military action, a time-limited, scope-limited military operation, that he initiated without consulting Congress or preparing the American people, then immediately handed over command of our troops to NATO, turning over leadership to a foreigner military leader for the first time, then let other countries volunteer our military to the operation to defend rebels that we have no idea who they are, or what they stand for, are we obligated to support this President for a non-war for which neither he nor the country know why we are there or what we expect the outcome to be?

Not one constitutional scholar, political pundit, or political adversary has been able to explain more perfectly and lucidly that Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya without congressional approval was unconstitutional and illegal other than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. But it was Hillary Clinton’s statement to Brad Sherman (D-CA), that manifested Joe Biden’s self-fulfilling prophesy that only a monarch would indiscriminately use military force without congressional approval:

She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they’ll send that to us too. The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission. She admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions.

All hail the Monarch of these United States, Barack Obama.

1.) Journalists have been wielding the same Thomas Jefferson quote regarding defense of a free press in a benighted and deceptive manner.

2.) The much overused cliché that is the automatic response of journalists, regardless of circumstances or transgressions, is the proclamation that Assange enjoys wholesale protection under the 1st Amendment because he labels himself as a journalist, and the retrograded assertion that journalists are immune from crimes committed while pursuing a headline.

3.) The irrelevant and misconstrued use of the Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers), as legal precedent that Assange possessed, as a journalist, carte blanche rights to disseminate classified cables stolen from the State Department.

4.) And finally, the much perpetuated bohemian and jejune idea by journalists and the Left that a free society’s government should not have any secrets, and we would all be better off if all activities of the government were readily available for citizens to peruse.

These four defenses of Assange and WikiLeaks have produced, after intense cogitation, contemplation, and analysis, not one shred of a credible defense for his transgressions against the United States and the other nations involved in the dispersing of stolen classified documents.

In addressing the Jefferson quote, one of the more consistent and perennially anti-American digital tabloid authors, of www.atlargley.com, started her apologetic essay defending Julian Assange with the currently overused Jefferson quote in an article entitled “Freedom of the Press? Really?” with the quote highlighted in yellow for some peculiar reason, as testament that Jefferson would readily endorse Julian Assange’s treason against the United States:

Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.–Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Note the date of the quote:1786. What the proprietor of this digital scandal sheet, Larisa Alexandrovna (not her real name, but a pen name due to her phantasm that she has been targeted by Vladimir Putin for criticizing him, and it protects her family who still lives in Ukraine), formally of Ukraine, has done is use a selective quote by Jefferson to make her point, and since she and other journalists ignore Jefferson’s rapidly evolved disdain for a free press and journalists, she and other journalists who start their pieces with this quote have negated their arguments by starting with a calculated misrepresentation.

Read her articles; she is a propaganda ideologist whose ideas are more important than the truth. Read the New York Times, a yellow press propaganda machine with a strong adversity to the truth if it contradicts their agenda. The press and journalists are marionettes twitching, writhing, and animating at the behest of their ideologies, which are pulling the strings. The Thomas Jefferson quote must be put in perspective for validation; it must be preceded by a quote three years earlier: Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published. –Thomas Jefferson, 1783. To understand what he means, and the history of this quote, read the answer found here.

Once loosened from their prior censorship confines, newspapers and journalists advanced down an accelerated evolutionary path to a disreputable and unprincipled lot, as did Jefferson’s accelerated disgust of journalists and the press:

Our newspapers, for the most part, present only the caricatures of disaffected minds. Indeed, the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation. –Thomas Jefferson, 1803

From forty years’ experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice.–Thomas Jefferson, 1816

And for good measure, three more quotes by Jefferson regarding the mercenary and contemptible state of journalism and the press:

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.–Thomas Jefferson

I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it. –Thomas Jefferson

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. –Thomas Jefferson

The journalism and the press we currently enjoy has had 200 years to continue its evolutionary degradation since the founding era to achieve its current level of disgust and malignancy. Following the quote about Jefferson, the article had nowhere to go but to rapidly degrade into hero worship for traitor Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of stealing the classified cables that Assange dispersed, something about Ann Coulter being a plagiarist, how every journalist should stand by WikiLeaks, and something or other about valuing the truth [sic]. It would be highly advisable for journalists to avoid Jefferson for support of their ideological debris in lieu of the truth.

Journalists have spent large sums of effort to convince themselves and the American public that the laws that apply to non-journalists do not apply to journalists.

The 1st Amendment does not offer journalists blanket protection from prosecution for committing crimes while in pursuit of headlines. Journalists are just like you and me, except they lie more, skirt the law, have a pathological crusade to control politics, are generally corrupt, and believe that their ideologies will always take precedence over the truth.

The Supreme Court has always ruled that not all speech is protected by the 1st Amendment; for example, “at risk speech,” “clear and present danger,” “fighting words” that promote violence, defamation, libel, sedition, incitement to cause a crime, and words or actions that would compromise national security, and various variations are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have violated almost every exclusion to 1st Amendment protection.

The United States has a very long history of punishing a wayward press and the passing of State secrets to the enemy. In 1608, Captain George Kendall of Jamestown was executed by firing squad for committing journalism for Spain. Kendall–and it is highly doubtful he was guilty–did basically what Assange did by passing along secrets to enemies of the state.

Thomas Jefferson, Edward Rutledge, John Adams, James Wilson, and Robert Livingston were appointed by the Continental Congress “to consider what is proper to be done with persons giving intelligence to the enemy or supplying them with provisions.” Washington wanted a more severe punishment for doing exactly what Assange did, and in 1775, they added the death penalty for espionage to the Articles of War, at George Washington’s insistence. If Assange had committed in 1775 what he did in 2010, he would have been summarily executed by the very people who made it possible to create the Constitution and its 1st Amendment.

Abraham Lincoln, the revered emancipator of the slaves, always listed as one of the top five U.S. presidents, shut down any newspaper that he believed to be unpatriotic and sympathetic to the North, and for good measure, arrested and incarcerated the editors and publishers of said newspapers. How would Julian Assange have fared by releasing the Union’s classified secrets to the world during Lincoln’s tenure? How would the New York Times have fared under Lincoln’s tenure during the Civil War?

Julian Assange accepted stolen classified information, owned by the United States government, then published it on the internet. This classifies as journalism? Why were Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg not protected by the 1st Amendment? If Assange is a journalist, then so were the Rosenbergs. If Assange had valid, truthful information acquired through proper channels, and the legal right of possession, he would be protected by the 1st Amendment.

The fraudulent use of the Pentagon Papers by the Left, as they did with the Jefferson quote, is most probably due to unsatisfactory intellect, as authors omit key elements that would support their detractors rather than their own arguments.

Daniel Ellsberg was the man responsible for the Pentagon Papers. He served in Vietnam, worked for RAND, was a military analyst, and worked at the Pentagon. While working at RAND, he was commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to work on a top-secret study of the Vietnam War. The resulting document was called United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967. These documents later became known as the Pentagon Papers.

Ellsberg began to be pulled towards the anti-war Left of this country, and became enamored with one Randy Kehler, a draft dodger. After soliciting the assistance of another RAND employee, Anthony Russo, Ellsberg, and Edward Kennedy’s staff began copying the classified documents.

Floyd Abrams, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has surmised the difference between the WikiLeaks case and the Pentagon Papers:

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.

Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were “derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments.”

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar’s 1972 book “The Papers & The Papers,” by saying, “I didn’t want to get in the way of the diplomacy.”

Julian Assange’s entire intent was to disrupt diplomacy, embarrassing the United States and all nations involved in ongoing diplomacy. Julian Assange has displayed an unrepentant and caviler attitude regarding any collateral damage to ongoing peace processes or human life; he did this in a seemingly pathological quest for notoriety. Ellsberg understood the paramount importance of secrecy involved in diplomatic negotiations. Julian Assange would have released the entirety of the Pentagon Papers, so would his supporters, even if by proxy.

Does the public have the right to know the entirety of governmental endeavors while conducting foreign affairs? Should the United States government be prohibited from keeping State secrets regarding sensitive negotiations with other countries? The Leftists, progressives, the majority of journalists, and press believe this to be a sound operating system for our government. But, in their standard hypocritical credo, this is not how the Leftist journalists and the press conduct their own affairs. The public does not have the right to know the highly sensitive negotiations between nations regarding diplomacy, national defense, and unorthodox yet necessary compromises to attempt to promote stability in this world, prevent wars, and manage trade. Make no mistake, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks would release the exact location of America’s nuclear weapons, all military submarine locations, the names, ranks, and military histories of every special ops team in the military, and the names and personal addresses of the entire CIA, FBI, NSA, etc, if he possessed that information. Journalists around the world would applaud his valiant accomplishment, and rush to his defense.

In an effort encompassed in predictable irony, Assange’s lawyer has lodged a formal complaint against The Guardian for releasing the squalid and private details of Assange’s alleged sexual assault on two women in Sweden. This same newspaper was instrumental in constructing Julian Assange as the paladin of truth for releasing the classified documents stolen from the United States government. In manifesting the irony of the The Guardian vis a vis the stolen classified documents Assange released, Assange’s lawyer articulated his umbrage at the release of Assange’s “classified information”:

I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing, trying to make Julian look bad. It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defense in a bad position.

The New York Times, a conduit for anti-American propaganda and State secrets, withheld information about New York Times reporter David Rohde, and his being kidnapped in Afghanistan; The New York Times then beseeched all media to not make public any information regarding the kidnapping of David Rohde, for fear of his safety. The Times had the opportunity to run dramatic headlines, such as New York Times Reporter David Rohde Kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet they refrained for fear of his safety. But when it comes to the safety of the United States military, CIA, and various clandestine informants, it is journalism, and must be printed.

And as far as Larisa Alexandrovna, and her bizarre guise to avoid using her real name, if her current state of relevance was increased 100 times, in the grand scheme of things, she would still be irrelevant. But since she supports Julian Assange and his total disregard for human life, and the shards of peace the world grasps, perhaps she could be consistent with WikiLeaks, and make available to the world her real name and the name and addresses of all her relatives in Ukraine.

Is Julian Assange’s fate sealed if he is extradited to the United States? As preposterous as it may seem, the United States may be his only safe haven in this world; statistically speaking, the law of probability dictates that he will receive the same punishment as Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo for releasing the Pentagon Papers: none. Because of an incomprehensibly incompetent and corrupt federal prosecutorial effort, Judge William Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo. As with Ellsberg and Russo, Assange’s fate will lie in the hands of one Eric Holder, who has demonstrated that he has that rare capability of consistently applying world-class incompetence to major prosecutions. Holder, with the support of Barack Obama, thought it best to try Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the terrorist who helped detonate bombs at two U.S. Embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people, in a civilian criminal court. Working with a 280-count indictment, and with conventional wisdom dictating that a worst-case scenario for a first year law school graduate would be to convict on less than 50% of the indictments, it is telling that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted of 279 of the 280 counts. He was convicted of only one count: conspiracy to destroy U.S. property with explosives. This, in relation to the severity of his crimes and the plethora of indictments, is the equivalent of being convicted for jaywalking.

Summation: Thomas Jefferson despised the reprehensible and loathsome evolution of journalism and the press in just a few short years; Julian Assange does not have 1st Amendment protection for dispersing stolen State secrets; journalists and the press cannot break the law chasing a headline; the Pentagon Papers have no relevance to the actions of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; and the accessibility of governmental secrets does not make for a safer and better government.

The treasonous and radical faction of the journalism community has worked itself into quite a paroxysmal state regarding Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ 1st Amendment rights of “freedom of speech, or of the press.” They are of the benighted assumption, as are far too many judges, that freedom of speech is an uncompromising and infinite right guaranteed by the Constitution. This assumption is based on clichéd impregnated ignorance, and is not based on the original intent of the 1st Amendment, nor Supreme Court rulings that have narrowed the scope of freedom of speech regarding matters of insubordination and causing harm to national security during times of war. Julian Assange’s agenda is to cause harm to United States national security, and subsequently the national security of other nations around the world.

Here is a list of questions the advocates of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks dare not ask, nor want the answers: Is Julian Assange protected under the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, and why? What does protected speech mean? Does the Constitution protect all speech without consequences? Was the release of stolen classified documents by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks “speech” as defined by common sense, or was it just malicious conduct with intent to harm?

To better understand Julian Assange’s impetuous attempt at sabotaging the national security of the United States and several other countries, and the questions proposed above, a clearer understanding of the history and formation of the “freedom of speech” clause and the “freedom of the press” clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the influences and intentions of the framers, is paramount–especially James Madison, who crafted the 1st Amendment with strict adherence to William Blackstone’s philosophy regarding freedom of speech and the press.

The foundational ideology of the Constitution can be traced to English common law, which is derived from natural law. John Locke (1632-1704) had significant influence on English common law and the formation of American jurisprudence. His influence is manifest in the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Locke wrote:

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule.

The foundation of the natural law is as follows: It is dictated by God; it transcends all countries; man-made laws that are antithetical to natural law are not valid; and man-made laws should be derived from this original law.

Following Locke, William Blackstone (1723-1780) wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1769. This book was the evolvement of natural law’s influence on English Law, and subsequently English law’s influence on American law. It was also the foundation for the legal education and principle in England and America, and was the source of law for the colonists. Blackstone’s beliefs in right to self-defense, freedom of speech, taxation without representation, etc. are the fundamentals of the Constitution. William Blackstone, just like Locke, was heavily influenced by natural law: “Good and wise men, in all ages…have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.”

Ironically, Blackstone was a loyal member of Parliament from 1761-1770, and it was his book, Commentaries on the Laws of England, that gave the colonists cause and inspiration to seek independence from England, much to the chagrin of Blackstone. Thomas Jefferson used natural law as just cause for seeking independence while penning the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In his book, Commentaries on the Laws of the Laws of England, Blackstone addressed the subject of free speech:

The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.

At the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, England had laws of prior restraint in the form of licensing laws regarding speech and the press. The framers clearly intended to eliminate prior restraint from speech and press. Prior restraint is the seeking of permission from a censor prior to publishing, or through licensing laws. Blackstone advocated against pre-approval before publication, but maintained that subjection to the consequences of “improper, mischievous or illegal” publication is judiciously prudent.

The framers’ intentions were to eliminate prior restraint from speech and the press by virtue of the 1st Amendment. But as Blackstone heralded, there was no immunity from the consequences of speech or press after being published or spoken. Their intentions concerning free speech and the press were significantly narrower in scope than what modern jurisprudence dictates. Contemporary jurisprudence, plundered by progressive and liberal ideology, is devoid of the fundamental foundation of the original understanding and intention of the 1st Amendment.

Locke’s and Blackstone’s influence on the founders is irrefutable, as noted by Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, which is the preeminent elucidation of the Constitution:

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.

Hence, in a state of nature, no man has any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him….

Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.

There were very few tests of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of the press clauses prior to the early twentieth century. The first test came in 1798 as the Alien Act, followed one month later by the Sedition Act; the acts were never tested in the courts. The Sedition Act declared that any treasonable activity, including the publication of “any false, scandalous and malicious writing,” was a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. People and publications were tried and convicted under this act. Unfortunately, the Sedition Act was more a tool for political expediency benefiting the Federalist Party than for punishing seditious enemies of the state.

John Marshall, a Federalist Congressman, later to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had his doubts about the Sedition Act, but he argued, in lockstep with Blackstone, that the guarantee of free press and speech meant only the right to publish, free from prior constraints, and that criminal punishment after publication was constitutional.

The “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” clauses of the 1st Amendment were not significantly challenged again until the enactment of the Espionage Act of 1917. The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed shortly after the U.S. entered WW I. The act prohibited disclosing government and industrial information regarding national defense, promoting the success of the enemy, interfering with the recruitment of troops, and refusing to perform military service if drafted. Exactly what Julian Assange did.

In 1918, Congress amended the Espionage Act, and the amendments were known as the Sedition Act. This act prohibited the expression of anti-war and unpatriotic speech and publication. It imposed several penalties on those convicted of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The Sedition Act, if enacted now, would take out of commission the majority of media outlets in the United States. The Espionage Act is still an active law.

Shortly after the passage of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, two high profile convictions under the acts were tested for their constitutionality by the Supreme Court in the cases of Schenck v. United States and Eugene Debs v. United States. The Schenck and Debs cases involved freedom of the press and freedom of speech–one case involved printed fliers, and the other involved a speech, respectively.

Charles Schenck was the local secretary of the Socialist Party of America in his area. Schenck was involved in anti-war activities in violation of acts. He mailed 15,000 leaflets to recently drafted servicemen encouraging them to resist the draft. He was arrested and charged with “causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States” and with disturbing the draft. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Charles Schenck’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. authored the majority opinion:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

The Schenck case created the “clear and present danger” test, which became the standard for deciding what speech and press was not protected by the 1st Amendment’s “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” clauses. After the “clear and present danger” test was applied to Schenck, its ruling was summarily applied to Debs v. United States.

Eugene V. Debs (1855 – 1926) ran for President of the United States five times as a Socialist Party of America candidate. Debs made an anti-war speech titled Socialism is the Answer in June of 1918 in Canton, Ohio. The content of his speech was deemed anti-war rhetoric against the United States for its involvement in WWI. Debs was arrested and charged under the Sedition Act of 1918. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison.

At issue was whether the United States violated Debs’ freedom of speech guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s conviction under the Espionage Act. Since Debs used language to discourage military recruitment, the Court ruled he was not entitled to protection under the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. His speech was ruled to have been a “clear and present danger” to the United States.

The Constitution is not the esoteric document espoused by the Bolshevist intelligentsia. It is a remarkably simple and discernible document. When in doubt, the author of any clause or amendment of the Constitution, and the debates and minutes regarding the ratification process, are readily available to be read in their entirety. Having the meaning explained by the author was, is, and will always be predominant to an interpretation maneuvered by antipodal dogma. The only complex aspect of constitutional law is the vast array of politically and ideologically motivated case law, and the jejune abstraction that stare decisis is not a debilitating infliction cast upon the original intent of the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law….” There has never been “no law.” Before the ink had sufficiently dried on the Constitution, the men that created it had abridged absolute unfettered speech with the Sedition Act.

It is manifest what the framers’ influences and intentions were when drafting the Constitution. The Constitution and its original intent have become disoriented, confusing, and enigmatic by ideologically motivated judges, lawmakers, and law schools.

Does Julian Assange have the right to release stolen documents to the detriment of United States national security in the name of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech and press clauses? Even though the 1st Amendment regarding speech is much broader and more liberal than the framers intended, Julian Assange does not have the constitutional protection to jeopardize America’s national security, especially during a time of war.

Be assured that if WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, or the New York Times, 234 years ago, had distributed stolen critical information to the British that would have jeopardized the survival of the thirteen colonies during the Revolutionary War, he would have been executed, WikiLeaks and the New York Times would have ceased to exist, and the principles prosecuted.

It is preposterous to assert that while crafting the Constitution, the intention of the 1st Amendment’s speech clause was to give a rogue disciple of perdition, such as Julian Assange, the wanton and unfettered ability to destroy this nation’s national security, without recourse, by virtue of the 1st Amendment. The Constitution was meant to protect United States citizens from the federal government, and that protection was certainly not intended to be extended to a foreigner, on foreign soil, who is a self-proclaimed enemy of this country.

The above picture shows Justice Greenberg exercising her freedom of expression when asked the following question: Do you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted through strict constructionism to achieve the original meaning of the founders?

Rat-a-tat-tat. Rat-a-tat-tat. The bursts of the cerebral Uzi discharging are still ringing through the halls of constitutional intelligentsia. This random, awkward firing is not the literal discharge of machine gun projectiles, but rather the suspicious preteritions scattered about between the start and the end of the amorphous sentences of the ensuing constitutional masterpiece, by means of recreational ellipses. Rat-a tat-tat. What wealth of information was strategically omitted in the void of the ellipsis? It is surely something of unquantifiable value, as this cerebral triggerman is a known quantity among the erudite as Meghan McCain has engineered the litmus test for one’s compelling relevance per Twitter or Facebook followers or friends. The author we are celebrating has 2821 friends on Facebook, multiplying rapidly; therefore, this author is relevant, knowledgeable, and a legitimate intellectual force majeure.

The author, Michael Gacki, proprietor of “Thoughts by Gacki,” has sent a shock wave through the society of constitutional scholars and practitioners, causing them to question the very foundation of their scholarship with his article titled, “How free is speech in the US?”

It would be a natural assumption that the gravity of the 1st Amendment case Snyder v. Phelps, currently before the Supreme Court, was weighing heavily on the author’s mind and heart while penning his pièce de résistance. If the court rules against the Westboro Baptist Church, and the church loses its ability to congregate around the perimeter of private military funerals and shout obscenities in the name of God at the deceased and family, then this case could be the catalyst that would drive the author into the catacombs of a dark, dark place.

Please be forewarned, due to this article’s esoteric composition, it will be necessary for me to elucidate the gaping unknowns left by the rat-a-tat-tats for the neophyte constitutionalists.

The profound penumbra within title of this avant-garde discourse is unmistakable, “How free is speech in the US?” It is obvious the author’s intentions are to knock the reader off kilter with this disorienting title, as this would give the author a measure of control over the reader’s psyche during the course of the article. Is the word “speech” in the title referring to free admission to an oratory spectacle in some concert hall? Is the author referring to US [sic], as all of us as a nation, or did he mean the United States? I must say, the suspense is very kilter knocking, as my psyche feels vulnerable, and I am reeling in my chair as I write.

The first sentence: “It isn’t really that free….” Now there has obviously been some type of bait-and-switch with the promised free admission price to a speech; does this now mean that there will be a nominal fee for the speech? Rat-a-tat-tat.

The author now directs our attention to the more substantive areas of the article, and the obvious breech of the 1st Amendment is highlighted: “An NFL coach flips an official the ‘bird’ and gets fined $40K??!!…..really? FREE SPEECH?”

During the author’s understandable rage, he held the trigger a little too long, and not only did he release a rat-a-tat-tat, but two extra tat-tats for good measure. A five-dot ellipsis can only mean there were myriad thoughts swirling around inside his head regarding the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, past and current constitutional case law, the 1st Amendment and its application to private companies, and of course, the price of admission to a speech.

It is perfectly understandable that the author is outraged by the audacity of a private organization, such as the NFL, to fine a coach who violated their code of conduct on national television with a commonly accepted vulgar expression. But what the untrained eye cannot detect is that the author has done something that is so inconceivable, so valiant, no one has ever attempted it–he arranged a 5-dot ellipsis outside the parameters of double question marks and double exclamation marks. At first glance, it appears a simple case of truculent grammar usage. But what the author, and now renowned physicist, has created with those 5 little dots is a wormhole into a space-time continuum. The casual reader sees double question marks, double exclamation marks, and 5 unidentifiable dots, but actually it is a wormhole containing 272 words that would take the reader two minutes to read, digest, and understand its complexity. But with the wormhole, the reader can comprehend the 272 words in 1/1000th of a second. One serendipitous advantage this author has over Newton, Einstein, and Hawkins is the employment of untutored grammar–which explains why the afore mentioned geniuses, and proficient writers, were never able to employ the manipulation of time and space.

Here is what the author obviously had ricocheting around his head when he created the wormhole with his super-ellipsis:

• There is no 1st Amendment right of speech in the private sector, so until Barack Obama nationalizes the NFL, the coach’s gesture is not protected.
• The coach, who signed a very specific code of conduct with the NFL, is bound by the rules of conduct and subsequent punishment for violating the rules. The code of conduct to which the coach agreed requires him to avoid conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. This conduct requirement applies to the following: players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials, and all others privileged to work in the National Football League. Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement.
• Throughout American constitutional law, there are exceptions to free speech. The exceptions are obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, “fighting words,” and sedition.
• Bethel School District v. Fraser
• Miller v. California, which set the following standard for exceptions to freedom of speech: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
• What would the ramifications be if the first eight amendments had not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment by various knavish Supreme Courts?

Is the genius of this that obvious?

Every single piece of information stored in the wormhole would cause the assumption that the coach’s vulgar gesture was not protected by the 1st Amendment. But our author obviously subscribes to that old adage, Knowledge is the ability to accept or reject what is being presented as knowledge. Most constitutional scholars cannot see the forest for the trees. What our author has done is take a giant step back, removing himself from the trees to enhance his perspective. He then took another step. Then another. Then the forest and trees disappeared over the hill and beyond the horizon. It is the mark of genius when one can become so erudite on a subject, and yet be so far removed from the subject matter, that it is almost as if he never knew anything about the subject in the first place. It is scientifically feasible to become a genius on any subject matter using this prescribed method, as the world is abundant with this caliber of genius.

Moving on from the space-time continuum, we arrive at the quintessence of the angst, which can apparently haunt someone his entire life: “People are reprimanded or fired from jobs everyday for voicing their opinions….not really free.” (Side note: do not be alarmed by the 4-dot ellipsis; in this case, it is just abhorrent grammar.) What the author is beseeching this country to rectify is that each individual should be protected by the entire Bill of Rights in the workplace. Say what they want, when they want, assemble as needed, establish a religion and convert the break-room into a church if they so choose, brandish firearms in their cubicles, not be forced to quarter troops in their offices, and have their offices and desks protected from a search by their boss without a warrant. If asked by management if they did a follow-up call on a client, they should be able to plead the 5th; if being terminated or reprimanded, request a jury of their peers (co-workers). Being fired or demoted should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

And finally, the declaratory statement that we should all heed, as our very lives depend on preparedness: “We are all surrounded by assassins”

Two oddities in this statement that will surely set in motion a worldwide tsunami of conspiracy theories: As bizarre as it seems, the statement does not contain an ellipsis, and the sentence does not have a stopping point. But there is one valid point to this grammatically deformed statement: the latest Gallup Poll suggests that .5% of all Americans, and 100% of all schizophrenics, believe…they…are…surrounded…by…assassins….

So in conclusion, just as Justice Potter Stewart stated in his opinion in the 1st Amendment case Jacobellis v. Ohio regarding the definition of pornography: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” I apply it to ignorance, and I know it when I see it!!………….

The Sketch Effect

An artist sketches a young subject. During the session, the artist engages in conversation with the subject, observes the subject’s mannerisms, and develops a sense of the subject’s personality and characteristics. The finished work not only encompasses the physical exactness of the subject, but includes the artist’s incorporation of the subject’s characteristics as well.

The original sketch is passed along to another artist to be duplicated. The second artist renders his sketch based upon the first sketch, but, without the use of the original characteristics of the original subject, the artist then incorporates his depiction of what he believes the subject’s personality should be into the sketch. This process is repeated until the tenth artist completes the sketch.

When the original sketch is compared to the tenth sketch, the similarities are abstract and transcendent, and the tenth sketch has taken on the aura of a caricature of the original subject. Yet when the tenth artist is asked to sketch the original subject under the same circumstances as the first artist, without knowledge of who the subject is, the sketch completed by the tenth artist of the original subject has only a vague similarity to the tenth artist’s first sketch.

The Sketch Effect is an allegorical depiction of the erosion of the authoritative meaning of the Constitution and the perpetual reinterpretation of the original intent by agenda and ideological driven law schools, lawyers, judges, and the Supreme Court. The legal education one receives from contemporary law schools, including elite law schools, is an obedient reverence for case law. The student examines, studies, and contemplates contaminated judicial decisions that are detached from and lacking relevance to the original meaning of the Constitution; these decisions are historically bereft, and are accepted as the Supreme Law of the land by virtue of courts circumventing the legislative process. By possessing legal knowledge generally antipodal to the founders’ intentions in the form of selectively beneficial case law taught by ideologically driven law professors, the fledgling jurisprudent is ill-equipped to discern the constitutionality of a legal ruling, a law, or a statute within the context of the Constitution. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et al., have become an assembly line of law school diploma mills that have produced constitutional anarchists such as the Clintons, Barack Obama, current Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, the perpetually benighted ACLU, along with the vast majority of federal judges who are unequivocally unqualified to administer constitutional law under any circumstance. Though these schools are generally ranked as the best law schools in the nation, the honor is gratuitously extolled by an incestuous hierarchy, intellectually incapacitated by their antithetic ideology counter to the original meaning of the Constitution.

This league of lawyers, universities, judges, and Supreme Court possess the perfect paradigm integral for creating defective law, and then the continued perpetuation under the guise of stare decisis.

The Left assails the Constitution time and again to dismantle settled law, unsuitable to their taste, until they find themselves arguing, serendipitously, before a majority of Supreme Court justices obedient to their ideologies, this in direct rebellion to the principles of stare decisis, or settled law. Once the matter has been adjudicated to their satisfaction, they will then cling to stare decisis as if it were the instrument of eternal life, using it to bludgeon into submission anyone who dares challenge the law legislated from the bench.

The foundation of the Constitution is based on Natural Law (God’s law), and the expounding disquisitions of Blackstone, Locke, Montesquieu, and others, along with the basis for our constitutional structure, dating back more than 1700 years. Our system has the capability of being self-correcting each time the system circles back to a more qualified set of jurists whose loyalties lie with the Constitution and their oath of office, but the preposterous intellection that being shackled to bad law by virtue of its length of time on the books is absurd, and quite frankly, un-American.

Judges fall under two categories today–liberal and conservative. These two descriptions are better suited to summarize the political tableau of the United States than to summarize its judges. The terms liberal and conservative are problematic for veraciously describing judges–especially Supreme Court justices. The terms liberal and conservative cannot accurately be used to assay the constitutional disposition of any sitting judge or law professor.

The term liberal does not describe the reason a school of law will expound self-serving case law to further ideology at the desecration of this country’s founding charter. The term liberal does not accurately describe the reason a judge will flagrantly adjudicate contrary to the Constitution, use contaminated case law, or the reason attorneys will passionately pursue cases in such a manner as to pervert the Constitution if the outcome is favorable to their ideologies. In contrast, the term conservative does not best describe why judges will adjudicate, to the best of their knowledge, based on the original intent of the Constitution, rather than rely on case law that may or may not be constitutional. More definitive descriptions instead of liberal or conservative judges could be reached by supplanting the term liberal with constitutional anarchist and conservative with constructionist. The only concessionary middle ground would be the application of the Constitution, adjusted for unforeseen advancements in society, but keeping the fundamental meaning intact. Justice O’Connor, before her retirement, and currently Justice Kennedy, were, and are, considered swing voters on the Supreme Court, sometimes ruling as constructionists and sometimes ruling as constitutional anarchists; the two cannot be reconciled and re-packaged as moderate. Neither label would apply because they are capricious jurists and will vote for an ideology, or in Kennedy’s case, suffer the allegiance of stare decisis.

Kennedy sided with O’Connor, upholding Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by reaffirming abortion is a right under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. O’Connor created a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart. Since Kennedy stated that he would probably not overrule Roe v. Wade because of precedent, even though he has indicated he is opposed to Roe v. Wade from a constitutionality perspective, he would let it stand because it has become settled law.

Without delving into the Supreme Court’s original intent or Marshall’s redefining of the court’s role regarding judicial review, and the Supreme Court as the omnipresent mediator of the Constitution, of the generally accepted protocol for the Supreme Court to accept or reject a case, the most fundamental principle of that acceptance is as simple as discerning whether it is a federal or state issue, which if the court had been guided by the Constitution instead of ideology, politics, and at times, prosaic arrogance, such perpetually and malignantly defective laws such as Roe v. Wade, etc., would have been summarily remanded back to the states to exercise their rights under the Constitution to adjudicate their own state laws.

Indulge in a moment of fantasy and imagine Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Steven Breyer, Barack Obama, Warren Burger, Thurgood Marshall, and the ACLU transported back in time, with the purpose of arguing before Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison the merits of why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in a courthouse or at any government building within the United States, the separation of church and state, why war memorials on government land are unconstitutional, why the government has the right to force all Americans to purchase insurance, or any other law on the books outside the limited parameters of Congress’s enumerated powers under the guise of the Commerce Clause. The hilarity of the dialogue and arguments between this gaggle of constitutional anarchists and the court would be bountiful. To even speculate the outcome would be an exercise in futility. These 21st century legal impotents would be remarkably ill-equipped, armed only with their ideology about what the Constitution should have meant or said, wielding irrelevant case law to argue their perverse interpretation of what these men meant when crafting the Constitution. This to a congregation of American paladins whose primary school education surpassed the entirety and quality of their own advanced law degrees. What would this collection of constitutional recalcitrants, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, say to James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, who stated, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” This decorous and intellectually commanding gathering of the founders, who would have opened the meeting with a prayer, would not have the comportment to tolerate their inane nonsense more than a few moments–even with the waving around of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, or the case law that, 150 years later, determined what Jefferson meant, and its noxious perpetuity as a result of settled law.

William F. Buckley said regarding Harvard, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” One could enlist the first 400 people of the Boston telephone directory, put them in an environment for one year in which they only studied, without supervision or influence, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Polybius’ The Rise of the Roman Empire, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and Science of Politics, and the United States Constitution, along with its amendments, the debates, the minutes of the authors, and the Federalist Papers. After one year of study, void of exposure to any constitutional case law, any random nine would be better equipped and qualified, notwithstanding the idiosyncratic nuances and elephantine U.S. legal system protocol, to sit on the Supreme Court than the entire staff of either Yale or Harvard law school, or the majority of Supreme Court justices that sat on that bench during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Just like their insect cousins the cicadas, every couple of years some intellectual infirmed with delusions of grandeur, armed with self-anointed enlightenment measurably superior to the profoundly educated Founding Fathers, will emerge from his or her burrow to denigrate, then call, for the sake of humanity, for a simple majority democratic vote, then for the systematic dismantling of the Electoral College.

The chimera of said insectum will proclaim, in defense of majority democratic vote, superior general literacy, knowledge of history, economics, government, and a better aptitude of the Constitution than its authors; but to levy such claims, said chimera must possess a most intimate analysis of Polybius, Macedonia, Rome, Montesquieu, and Locke, then summarily reject, in the name of their ideological egesta, the indubitable value of the subsidizing influence on the erudite architects of this country. The current league of malcontents and heretics of the Constitution and the Electoral College are huddled at the National Popular Vote.

The proponents of a living rather than a static Constitution believe that a governing document written over 200 years ago could not possibly possess relevance for contemporary society that is rapidly succumbing to the debauchery of the Democratic Party’s licentious character. The electoral voting system was not a provisional clause of the Constitution lying in wait until some virtuously challenged, banal intellectual could cry “eureka,” then implement a system that has succumbed to its own cannibalistic philosophy for millenniums. Their argument is pregnant with irrelevance, ignorance, and deceit. The Constitution’s fundamentals and influences can be traced back 2500 years, hardly relegating the 200-year-old governing document’s structure obsolete and outdated.

The tutelarian luminaries who constructed this country’s jurisdictional blueprint during the Constitutional Convention debated electing the president by direct popular vote, and also by congressional selection. The idea of popular vote was summarily rejected because the more populous states and their political, economic, and ideological persuasions could elect a president with little to no influence of the less populous states, and a congressional appointment of a president was antithetical to the separation of powers. The compromise between the two was the Electoral College. An electoral voting system and representative form of government was not a genuine political system circa the Constitutional Convention; it was modeled after the Centuriate Assembly of the Roman Republic, thus the language of Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the electoral system.

Four presidents on the losing end of the popular vote have been elected since the ratification of the Constitution: John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson in 1824 (without a clear winner, the House of Representatives decided the outcome), Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden in 1876, Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland in 1888, and George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000.

These four electoral anomalies demonstrate the meticulous craftsmanship of the equitable structure of the Constitution and the Electoral College.

To the naysayers of the Electoral College and the proponents who believe that a popular vote for president is the only fair and equitable method, a guileless example should manifest the necessity of avoiding a popular election at the peril of fairness and equity: California, as of 2009, has a population of 36,961,664 citizens. The population of the twelve most contiguous states to California — Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Washington — have a combined population of 30,512,485. This demographic doppelganger is representative of the original thirteen colonies and the similar difficulties the architects of the Constitution faced. California has the capability of electing the president, thus rendering the other twelve states irrelevant if the election were a popular majority vote. Considering that the politics, ideologies, and morals of California are in the aggregate, with my special ability to discount the argument of moral relativism, licentiously profound, and the politics, ideologies, and morals of the more rural states of Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc. are, in the aggregate, much more conservative and morally enduring. This inequitable amalgamation does not a “these united states” make.

Let us revisit the constitutional saboteurs at National Popular Vote. The website is plush with information and opinions, adroitly structured with images of the Declaration of Independence, the Presidential Seal, and a rendering of men who were responsible for founding this country. It is replete with political endorsements of politicians whose voting records and ideologies would cause them unease sharing a Happy Meal with Thomas Jefferson, thus rendering Karl Marx a more suitable dining companion; and of course, prominently displayed, the obligatory “donate here” button. After performing a perfunctory autopsy on their lifeless exposé that proudly displayed a New York Times editorial denouncing the Electoral College, and as with all baseless endeavors, once the veneer is pierced, National Popular Vote is exposed as an illiterate exposition of the Constitution and American history, burdened with rudimentary contradictions and deceit.

Their argument:

The Electoral College was established by the nation’s founders in part to appease slave-owning states. It is based indirectly on population, and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Each state now gets as many electoral votes as it has representatives in Congress.

This duplicitous analysis of the reason for the Electoral College and the purpose for the counting of only three-fifths of certain peoples for representation in Congress is as pathetic as it is comical. The reason for the structure of the Electoral College system was expounded upon in a preceding paragraph, and needs no further annotating, but the audacity of the antipodal definition for counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a favor to the slave owning states is intellectually and morally felonious.

What this subordinated publication is referring to is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which can be found in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution: …their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The contradiction and prevarication of the statement is apparent even to the dilettante historian, as common sense and a cursory perusal of a primary school history book would establish the peremptory conclusion that slave states would have, and did want, all inhabitants, including slaves, to be counted as whole persons to increase their number of representatives in Congress, thus increasing their political and ideological leverage. The anti-slave states would have, and did want, only free inhabitants counted, and did not want slaves counted for congressional representation, thus increasing their political and ideological leverage. The resulting conciliation was the Three-Fifths Comprise.

The artifice of the National Popular Vote’s end-run around the Constitution consists simply of causing enough states to change their election laws to a system of waiting until the popular vote is calculated, then ceremoniously bestowing the entirety of their electoral votes for the popular vote winner. There exists three major flaws with their scam: 1) It defeats the sprit of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution regarding the use of electorates to cast votes for the presidency, 2) their scam is to circumvent a necessary constitutional amendment, which would be impossible to pass, to elect the president by popular vote, and 3) the states that actually buy into their contrivance would be removing themselves from any influence regarding the presidential election as their votes would support a president already elected by the other states, thus rendering the will of their own citizens irrelevant. Their preposterous assumption is that the Constitution only mentions using electorates, and does not specifically mention the Electoral College, so it is well within a state’s rights to cast all their electoral votes for the popular winner, and this would lay firmly within the confines of the intention of the Constitution; but it does not, it violates the spirit and intentions of the Constitution.

The implication of the National Popular Vote and their ilk is that this country was founded as a democracy. That is categorically counterfactual. This country was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic, and the only form of government guaranteed in the Constitution in Article VI, Section 4, is a republican form of government.

Socrates describes in The Republic the perfect city ruled by a philosopher-king under a political system of aristocracy. The aristocracy will degenerate into four inferior forms of government: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Each government will pass through each stage. Democracy adjoins tyranny with a border as accessible as the U.S. and Mexico border; Plato realized, as does the Democratic Party of America, that the walk is as short and unencumbered to emigrate from Mexico as it is to emigrate from democracy to tyranny. Socrates also expounded the insignificant differences between democracy and anarchy. Our current Democratic led Congress and the Obama administration seem to be conflicted and confused as to whether they are a Socrates-style democracy or tyranny. The method used to pass the health care reform bill was unadulterated tyranny, and Obama’s signature was an absolute endorsement of tyranny. Barack Obama, with his unrestrained arrogance and unsophisticated pompousness, seems to possess a pathological hankering to be regarded as a philosopher-king, but Socrates defined philosophers as those who knew they were ignorant, but would become wise — which leaves a momentous chasm between Barack Obama’s severe limitations as a leader and his leaving his introspection to his demagogues. These Electoral College apostates, the Democratic led Congress, and Barack Obama share one absolute, indistinguishable bond: a uniform political DNA.

Does the Electoral College cast the American voter, on the whole, as a myopic Pollyanna? Absolutely, especially when coupled with the fact that the Founding Fathers feared what would happen if there was direct election for the Presidency. They feared, and rightly so, that a silver tongued mountebank would cause the plebeians, the intellectual defects, the morally challenged, and the ignorant to swoon and faint on command, then march, in a catatonic stupor, to the voting booth to make good on their spellbound allegiance. To minimize the chances of this apocalyptic event occurring, the founders devised the Electoral College. Because of the prophetic design of the Founding Fathers, this event was averted until November of 1932, then again in November of 2008. In retrospect, it was a hard lesson learned in 1932, and an even harder lesson currently being taught, and hopefully will not be repeated in the foreseeable future, as is evidenced with the unquestionable movement back in the direction of the intent of the Founders of this country.