Archive for the Constitution Category

Are “Prices” A Language? Are Antitrust Laws Grounded In The First Amendment? How Do We Forestall The “Frightful Five” And Other Monopolies? Oh, And Happy Halloween! (October 30, 2017)

Posted in Amazon, Apple, Constitution, Economics, Facebook, First Amendment, Google, Internet, Language, Microsoft, Monopoly, Price, Radio, Technology on October 30, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Prices for goods and services are a language spoken with numbers (7) not letters (L).”

J          “I love language.  French is the language of love and the language of diplomacy.  Accounting is the language of business.  So Prices are the language of a free market economy?”

K          “Yes.  Russian is one of the languages of literature.”

J          “So is French.”

K          “And English.”

. . .

K          “Monopolies distort Prices which distorts speech.  By distorting Prices, the public is making inaccurate and incomplete decisions and paying more for goods and services while the corporations are not internalizing externalities.”

J          “Price may just be the real Esperanto.”

. . .   

J          “The current monopolies are in part the consequence of acts of commission and even more often acts of omission by the government.”

K          “The problem with my analysis is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government activity not a requirement for government action.”

J          “So the Constitution is unavailing.  We are stuck with Congress, the executive agencies and the courts to protect us.”

K          “They do not speak our language.”

. . .

[See the interview by Terry Gross with the tech columnist Farhad Manjoo with “The New York Times” who cautions that the “Frightful Five” (Amazon, Google/Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook) are more powerful than the governments on the “Fresh Air” radio program titled “How 5 Tech Giants Have Become More Like Governments Than Companies” on October 26, 2017.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Spanish is the language a man uses to talk to his God;

French is the language a man uses to talk to his wife;

Italian is the language a man uses to talk to his mistress;

German is the language a man uses to talk to his mule.

And English is the language a man uses to fly a plane or to surf the web or to engage in international discourse.  You create it, you talk it.

And Price is the language a man and a woman use to value and exchange resources.

Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Law School, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 16, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “The law schools are vacuous deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  The bench is a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the racket for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow manages to make a difference.”

K          “They were included within the group of individuals acknowledged and celebrated last year.  The recipient of the second annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is John W. Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute for his and its dedication to the protection and defense of civil liberties and human rights.  He and the Institute are indeed public defenders of law and policy who have made and are making a difference.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

I wasn’t using my civil liberties anyway

The Third Amendment: Finding A Safe Haven And A Refuge For The Elements (May 10, 2017)

Posted in Constitution, Fiat Currency, Gold, Gold Standard, Martial Law, Privacy, Republican Federal Judge Syndrome, Second Amendment, Silver, Silver Standard, Third Amendment, War on May 8, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “It was placed third ahead of the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a trial by jury and the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, among others.  Protecting against the threat was a greater concern and anxiety that these other concerns and anxieties.”

J          “And yet one hundred out of ninety-nine Americans cannot identify it.  Even at tony cocktail parties.  It is the Privacy Provision.”

. . .

K          “As I recall, it says:  ‘No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law’ or something like that.  Congress has not formally declared war for decades, yet the government is at war with most of the world all the time and will be at war with most of the world until the final collapse of the American Empire.”

J          “The Constitutional benchmark in time of war allows for regulation ‘prescribed by law’ that provides an open-ended ability to oppress the people.  The government can send in the police and contend that they are not even soldiers, even though the police are militarized and soldier-surrogates in the soft martial law that has been in place for the last dozen plus years.”

K          “And the Republican federal judges suffering from ‘Republican Federal Judge Syndrome’ will allow the government to do anything it wants to and call if deference.”

. . .

K          “Survey the literature.  No one even questions that the government will confiscate gold and likely silver when the stuff begins to compete with the fraudulent fiat currency foisted on the public by the government.”

J          “The government will not stop there.  The Empire will confiscate all the elements – Au, Ag and Fe and Pb.”

K          “The Second Amendment may provide some limited protection for guns and perhaps for ammo.  The Third Amendment needs to be expanded to protect gold and silver from government confiscation.”

J          “The right to keep and exchange precious metals shall not be abridged.”

. . .

J          “The Founding Fathers did not have to contend with a fraudulent fiat currency.”

K          “That is why I contend that the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering troops in one’s house should be expanded to include a prohibition against the government restricting the use of ‘Washington quarters’ of the citizen’s choosing in one’s house and in exchanges with other citizens so inclined.”

J          “Quarters, dimes and dollars are under assault and attack by the government.  They are the only means to maintain some privacy and freedom in exchanges.”

K          “The Third Amendment may offer the most promise for providing some constitutional protection for privacy and freedom broadly defined.”

. . .

K          “On the other head, the Third Amendment is undergirded by the fiction that the house is one’s castle and should not be invaded by the state.  Vesting the Third Amendment with what we deeply believe is important may be an inappropriate bypass of direct Congressional action.”

J          “Bypassing direct Congressional action does not seem inappropriate to me.  Congress will pass the law to confiscate precious metals and not pass any law to protect private possession of property such as possession of precious metals.”

. . .

K          “And talking about quarters, . . . that’s my two bits.”

J          “And that is my dos centavos.”

. . .

[See the essay by Gordon S. Wood on “The Third Amendment” published by the National Constitution Center.] 

[See the e-commentary at “Preserve Cash; Preserve (Some) Privacy (May 4, 2015)”, “The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge: Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013)” and Boycott Facebook? (August 2, 2010)” that suggests an extension of the Third Amendment to protect against invasions of privacy.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Dividing The Divided Supreme Court In A Divided Country (October 3, 2016)

Posted in Constitution, Elections, First Monday In October, Immanentizing The Eschaton, Presidency, Supreme Court on October 3, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Divide the Court.  The Court is already quasi-formally divided, yet they meet in joint session.  The country is already divided.  Formally divide the Court in two.”

J          “So we simply acknowledge the divide in the country and divide the country and the Court in twain.  That is where we are heading.  That is our destiny.” 

K          “There is talk of dividing the Ninth Circuit which, if it is done, is always along geographic lines.  The Supreme Court is divided along easily demarcated ideological lines and adequately defined geographic lines.  The four Red Catholic Republican Institutionalist Boys should propound the law in the Red States.  The four Blue ‘Jewish’ Democratic Individualist ‘Girls’ should propound the law in the Blue States.”

J          “One Great Decision.  Two utopias.  I like it.”

K          “What is truly promising is that neither side would be forced to undertake and endure a great constitutional convention; that prospect is terrifying.  Each team could have a mimeographed copy of the same Constitution.  And then each team could continue to reach opposite results.”

. . .

J          “That would allow everyone in the two Americas to immanentize the Eschaton everywhere at the same time.”

K          “Not exactly.  One team would allow everyone in Blue America to immanentize the Eschaton and the other team would not allow anyone in Red America to immanentize the Eschaton.”

J          “Exactly.  Toward a more perfect division.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary for the last half dozen years in the Category “First Monday In October”, “Boycott Red America (January 3, 2005)”, “Immanentize The Eschaton: Move To Sunny Somalia (December 20, 2010)” and “Immanentize The Eschaton.  Say What? (August 22, 2016).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

The Election is all about the Court

We are selecting one of the two Courts not one of the two court jesters

With liberty and justice for some

natural born Citizen; Natural Born Killers (March 7, 2016)

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Originalism, Presidency, Republicans, Supreme Court on March 7, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “An individual who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ such as John McCain and Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President or Vice President of the United States.  The ‘Originalist’ interpretation of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the U.S. Constitution is clear and unassailable.”

J          “To honor Scalia’s passing and continue its practice of intervening in elections, the Supreme Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction and enter an injunction enjoining Ted Cruz from running.  For the good of the cause.  And the Constitution.”

K          “Indeed.  Certainement.  Post haste.  He professes to be an honorable man.  And also one of the original ‘Originalists’.  He would surely concur.”

. . .

J          “Many clear thinking individuals now maintain that those born in the United States and those born elsewhere who meet legal requirements meet the contemporary understanding of citizenship at birth.” 

K          “That is the perspective of the see-me, feel-me, touch-me; I’m-okay, you’re-okay; peace, love and Woodstock; tune-in, turn-on, tune-out; get-down, get-funky; if-it-feels-good, do-it school of jurisprudence.”

J          “Yup.”

K          “Kinda makes sense.”

J          “Does.”

. . .

K          “The boys debating with the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ are behaving like ‘Natural Born Killers’.”

J          “So in the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’.”    

. . .

[See the discussion at http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court and https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b.]

[See the discussion at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fukushima Daiichi

Marital Musings (December 22, 2014)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Economics, Gold Standard, Kleptocracy, Movie Reference, Radio, Russia, Silver Standard, Society, Sports, Supreme Court on December 28, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

H1        “So she said we had to set aside some time for a conversation.  I knew it would get bad.”

H2        “You don’t get to say anything.”

H1        “Except when spoken to.  So she said she had to confess that she was thinking about someone else while we were in medias res.  And she said that she was now happy to have gotten if off her chest.  I said that was fine.  She could be thinking about Mr. Magoo if it will get us through the night.  From my perspective, if I can handle the kitchen remodel, junior can get braces.  But it ended up not being fine.  I should have been upset.  She was upset that I was not upset.  I was beginning to get sort of upset that she was upset that I was not upset.”

H2        “Nothing about Gina Lollobrigida.”

H1        “She would have exercised the proviso ‘til death do us part’ and parted with me.”

. . .

H2        “She asked if I noticed that she had put on weight.  I had not noticed, so I told her that I had not noticed.  I am thinking that I get 100 points for candor and honesty and being a great guy and for being a little oblivious.  Maybe an MVP award and a hall pass.”

H1        “And she was upset that you were not upset.  And it was Katie bar the door with Katie showing you the door.”

H2        “I didn’t get a pass.  I told her that once she made the cut and was on the team, things like that did not really matter.”

H1        “And she parsed every phrase.”

H2        “‘Made the cut’ and ‘on the team’ are two separate concepts.  Saying that it is like two wrestlers who make weight and then each go off and have bacon cheeseburgers did not assuage her anxiety.”

. . .

H1        “We conversed with a counselor who opined about psychological affairs versus physical affairs and provided few insights to address our financial affairs.”

H2        “Do you think he was safe?”

H1        “She is sure that we only talk about sex.”

H2        “Safe by a mile.  Replay is clear.”

. . .

[See the latest sophistry from the Supreme Court that vitiates the Fourth Amendment.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf.  An illegal stop is an illegal stop and not a legal stop.]

[See the commentary at “Henrietta And Henry O, Two Young Lovers: The Contemporary Gift Of The Magi (December 27, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Honey, would you rather I were making love to him using your name, or making love to you using his name?”  Annie Savoy, Bull Durham (1988)

Russian Exceptionalism > or = or < American Nationalism

The COMEX is instituting trading collars for the sale of gold and silver.  And the answer to Will Shortz’ “Sunday Puzzle” seeking the correct anagram for “Comex” is . . . “Fraud.”

Cell Phones: Supreme Court Celebrates “Terrorism-Free Month” With Unanimous Proclamation On Privacy (June 30, 2014)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Supreme Court, Technology, Terrorism-Free Month - June on June 30, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L          “At core, the Supreme Court really confessed that all nine of them in fact have cell phones, too.”

M          “Thank goodness that the Founding Fathers anticipated the emergence of cell phones.  That seems to be what animated Scalia, Alito and Thomas.”

. . .

L          “If, pray tell, a cop detained a Justice of the Supreme Court, the computer check of the vehicle license plate or a quick review of his or her Supreme Court identification card would summon an immediate apology from the police for the delay and inconvenience.”

M          “A cop would see the Supreme Court parking sticker on the bumper and arrest his or her activities.”

L          “Supreme Court Justices are immune from prosecution.”

M          “Yet their kids have cell phones and may not be afforded the same immunity.”

. . .

L          “Roberts’ opinion is an insightful commentary on the ubiquity of the cell phone and its pervasiveness in our lives.  The ‘smarty pants phones’ are the repositories of our mind and soul.”

M          “The kids in particular are transfixed by these fixtures that could be affixed to them with pop rivets.”

. . .

M          “You could craft a novel using just cell phone records and, for good measure, credit and debit card statements.  Grocery receipts, book purchases and movie rentals are a telescope and microscope into one’s internal hard drive.  The reader would need to participate actively in reading between the lines, discerning the interstices and supplementing the silences, yet the effort would be rewarded.”

L          “I stumbled on my January, 2011 credit card statement and relived the previous month just reviewing line item entries.  Who, what, when, where and, with some imagination, why.”

M          “There are no secrets today.”

. . .

L          “The Court and public officials should error, if it is an error, on the side of privacy.”

M          “A warrant really is not much to ask.”

L          “Nine to nothing is something.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Get a warrant, please.

Justice Roberts knows more about cell phone telephony than your honor student . . . or your dog.