Category Archives: Individual Rights

NEW ESSAY: The Anti-Federalists Were Right

Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Individual Rights, States' Rights

The Anti-Federalists Were Right,” is now on Mises Wire. Excerpt:

On the eve of the federal convention, and following its adjournment in September of 1787, the Anti-Federalists made the case that the Constitution makers in Philadelphia had exceeded the mandate they were given to amend the Articles of Confederation, and nothing more.

The Federal Constitution augured ill for freedom, argued the Anti-Federalists. These unsung heroes had warned early Americans of the “ropes and chains of consolidation,” in Patrick Henry’s magnificent words, inherent in the new dispensation.

At the very least, and after 230 years of just such “consolidation,” it’s safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter.

The natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders’ original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

Consider: America’s Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

There is simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does. …

… READ THE REST. “The Anti-Federalists Were Right” is now on Mises Wire.

Arrested For Reciting Churchill, In Today’s England

Britain, Canada, Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Islam, Law, Liberty

How dare Europeans call themselves free citizens! The UK and, for the matter, France, Germany and the rest of EU controlled Europe, have no right to claim their societies are free. (Or that elections are in furtherance of freedom, which they lack and don’t seem eager to rediscover.)

[Paul] Weston, a candidate for English member of the European Parliament, was arrested [three] years ago for reading aloud a passage” from a novel, The River War (1899), by Winston Churchill. These are the words that can get you arrested in Europe:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. (“Churchill in Africa,” APRIL 6, 2017, Chronicles magazine.)

Canada is similar.

Berkley is an intellectual cesspool. Defund it. Definitely privatize it. Sack it, for all I care. But if Berkley is anything to go by, the US is inching toward the criminalization of so-called offensive speech. Academics enforce speech codes they invent. Police refuse to uphold the rights of speakers to speak unmolested. It’s coming. (See “The Battle Of Berkeley 4: Peace And Another Victory For The Deplorables.”)

The Treacherous Left Trying to Unseat, Impeach A Legitimate POTUS

Donald Trump, Individual Rights, Left-Liberalism, States' Rights

We deplorables are good people, but we’ve had enough of these perverts of the commie Left; these filthy agitators trying to unseat a legitimately elected American president. Its media are talking about impeachment, one month into Donald Trump’s presidency.

Let us go.

If they let us secede, Deplorables would—and could—live happily among their own. But if we deplorables seceded, they, the Left, would soon come after us, because we’d have the best territory. They would want what we built. They’d say, “You didn’t build that. Give it over to us.” For, in their twisted minds, the first claim justifies the second.

The Third World epidemic of lunatics: “Loud and angry, protesters turn congressional town halls into must-see political TV.”

UPDATED: An ‘Ebullient’ President-Elect Who Cares About The Constitution As A Timeless Document

Barack Obama, Constitution, Donald Trump, EU, Europe, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Natural Law

Our magnificent President-elect Donald Trump spoke to libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano about constitutional originalists—who is; who isn’t—and the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. Trump also asked Judge Napolitano about how you stop The Bureaucracy from legislating. As you all know, we live under a Managerial State, where the bureaucracy has vast discretion to pass and enforce laws that are never vetted by our so-called law-makers and representatives. These cockroaches have allowed it.

The Chevron Doctrine:

Did Barack Obama ever make such an inquiry? No. Barack Obama was not in the habit of hiding how he felt about the US Constitution. As much as he disliked the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seemed to know a bit about the intent. Here’s Senator Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans seldom mention and Democrats deem dated:

… as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

The president recognized and rejected “the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties.” Because of the obstacles the Constitution poses to “redistributive justice,” community organizing à la Obama aims at achieving extra-constitutional change.

MORE GREATNESS FROM TRUMP: