Category Archives: Constitution

Welcome To The Jungle Of Post-Constitutional America

Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Objectivism, Politics, Republicans

Nowhere has this libertarian declared in support of Donald Trump. I chronicle and analyze our politics, but, until now, I’ve refrained from partaking in it. This could change, but that’s how it is right now. Nevertheless, at least one reader has confused an analysis of The Positive Process of Trump with an endorsement of the candidate.

A careful reading of The Trump File will show that matters of process are being emphasized:

1. Differences between political incentives in operation and apolitical incentives (Trump’s) in operation. Trump cannot be compared, on the meta-level, to a politician.
2. The Constitution is a dead letter. In this post-constitutional jungle, the law of the jungle is what prevails. Do we get a benevolent authoritarian to veto Obama’s legacies, or do we continue to submit to Demopublican diktats? That’s the best we can hope for until the center falls apart and gives way to the process of secession.

Speaking of dissolving the chains that bind us to the center: Viva Catalonian secession from Spain. Good for Catalonians. They have begun the process.

UPDATED: Pope Knows Absolutely Nothing About The American Constitutional Republic (& Even Less About Catholic Canon Law)

America, Christianity, Constitution, Individual Rights

Said the scold from Rome, Pope Francis, to a joint session of Congress:

You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. …

There are more papal distortions about the American constitutional scheme, but it’s too dismaying to plumb. Feel free to read on.

Even President Barack Obama recognized, these are his own words, that “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.” Obama has made it cleat that due to the obstacles the Constitution poses to “redistributive justice,” community organizers like him have aimed at achieving extra-constitutional change.

The Pope should be told by Republican elected representatives, who lapped up his words and shed crocodile tears—that they are bound not “to satisfy common needs,” as this ignorant Pope put it, but to uphold a limited set of negative, individual rights: LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.

If you care about freedom and the American way, explain to your children the principles explained so simply in “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic,” by way of one example. (Search the Articles Archives under negative rights, individual rights, etc., for more.) Don’t raise your kids to confuse Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s general will with the American verities of republicanism and limited government.

UPDATE: Finally, our left-libertarian judge gets it Right:

… Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain. The Church cannot grant divorces because Our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.

An annulment is a judicial finding that a valid marriage never existed. This generally requires a trial, at which the party seeking the annulment must prove the existence of the marital defect from the beginning.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

It gets worse.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

In his papal exhortation on capitalism, Pope Francis spectacularly failed to appreciate the benefits of capitalism to the health, wealth and safety of the poor. Instead, he has reworked the Peronism of his youth to advocate government-mandated redistribution of wealth and to condemn those who work hard, employ others and achieve wealth — even when they give some of that wealth to the Church. …

A beautiful column. Read the rest.

UPDATED: Founding Fathers Thought Islam Was Foul (Article VI)

Constitution, Founding Fathers, History, Islam, Judaism & Jews

The Constitution is worded carelessly—enough for contemporary Americans to wonder what it was that its framers meant by barring, in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any religious test for office.

No longer permitted, a reasonable historical interpretation would nevertheless suggest the Founders were not hoping to protect the Republic’s Islamic faithful. (Where? When?) Contrary to modern myth-making, Muslims, unlike Jews—think Mordecai Sheftall of the Colonial forces and Colonel Abraham Charles Myers of the Confederacy—were not enmeshed in early America from its inception.

In “No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam,” Laura Rubenfeld of PJ Media rounds up what the Founders truly thought of Islam, in a reply to a liar for the faith (a practice known in Islam as taqiyya):

“Akbar Ahmed [1], the chair of Islamic studies at American University, has advised many government officials, including General Petraeus, Richard Holbrooke, and George W. Bush. He speaks regularly on BBC and CNN, and has appeared on many U.S. shows, including Oprah and Nightline.

To oppose the ‘burn the Quran’ event planned by Pastor Terry Jones, Ahmed wrote an editorial [2] for CNN in which he stated”:

Not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers. …
The Founding Fathers read and honored the same Quran that Jones is now seeking to burn. …
[John Adams, America’s second president] showed the utmost respect for Islam, naming the Prophet Mohammed as one of the greatest truth seekers in history.

“These statements are utterly opposed by the facts.

John Adams said absolutely nothing of the kind. Correspondence [3] from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is ‘a military fanatic’ who ‘denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.

John Adams did indeed own a Quran [4] — the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …

Perhaps Akbar Ahmed misspoke, and was referring to John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams? The sixth president, not the second?

No. Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote about the Islamic prophet Mohammed:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]

John Quincy Adams also described the Quran [5] in one of his essays as follows:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Ahmed also claims in his editorial that ‘Benjamin Franklin called the Prophet Mohammed a model of compassion.’ Ahmed made similar claims [6] on The Daily Show:

I quote the Founding Fathers. … John Adams on the Prophet of Islam: He called him one of the greatest truth seekers in history. (Ben) Franklin called him a model of compassion. And Jefferson had the first Iftaar … and owned a copy of the Quran. … Those Americans who are attacking Islam simply as a terrorist religion or a religion of evil, really need to go back to their own Founding Fathers.

In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette [7], Ben Franklin wrote:

Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.

Thomas Jefferson? Like John Adams, he did own a Quran, one translated by George Sale [8]. Here are some of Sale’s comments [9] on the Quran, included by Sale in his introduction:

It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword.

In his editorial, Akbar Ahmed claims:

Thomas Jefferson kept the … Quran in his personal collection and it informed his decision to host the first presidential iftaar during Ramadan.

President Obama repeated this claim — that Jefferson hosted the first presidential iftaar — at the most recent White House Ramadan dinner.

Let’s review the facts.

During the Barbary Wars, in 1805, the bey (i.e., monarch) of Tunis threatened war with the United States after the U.S. had been successful in capturing some Tunisian pirate ships. The bey sent an envoy to the United States to negotiate for the return of the ships. This envoy stayed in Washington for six months, during which the month of Ramadan passed.

One of Thomas Jefferson’s many invitations extended to this envoy to meet with him at the White House was during the month of Ramadan. To accommodate the envoy’s religious obligation, Jefferson changed the time of dinner [10] from the usual ‘half after three’ to ‘precisely at sunset.’

Jefferson was being polite — not celebrating the first White House iftaar, as Akbar Ahmed suggests.

The first Ramadan iftaar was not actually held at the White House until 1996 [11].

Indeed, in a letter dated June 26, 1822 [12], Jefferson had this to say about Islam in a passage regarding Calvinism:

Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.

For good measure, Akbar Ahmed also mentioned John Locke:

The Founding Fathers were also inspired by Christian thinkers like John Locke, who declared that the true Christian’s duty was to “practice charity, meekness, and good-will in general toward all mankind, even to those that are not Christians.”

Akbar Ahmed is currently Ibn Khaldoun chair and professor of Islamic studies at American University. Ibn Khaldoun was a 14th century Islamic philosopher and scholar, a man about whom Akbar Ahmed has written [13]. Ibn Khaldoun advocated for violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate.

Ibn Khaldoun makes it clear that holy war is the duty of every Muslim. From his most famous work, Muqaddimah:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

Akbar Ahmed is, as previously noted, an advisor to General Petraeus. One wonders if General Petraeuss has been influenced by the false teachings of this professor.”

[SNIP]

With appreciation to PJ Media’s Laura Rubenfeld.

UPDATE (9/22): Lawyer for liberty Jim Ostrowski clarifies Article VI:

Shame on ivy league lawyers Cruz and Hillary for thinking that art VI of the Constitution binds Ben Carson re Muslims running for president.

Private individuals are legally free to base their votes on anything they please.

Dem candidates say that religion is irrelevant as they scurry from black church to synagogue in search of votes.

You Say McKinley; I Say Denali

America, Constitution, Federalism, Race, States' Rights

To me it seems natural and organic for the people of Alaska to name the hilly protrusions along their stomping ground.

Aaron Goldstein, at The American Spectator, doesn’t wish “to make mountains” of the fact that his Highness, Barack Obama, changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali. Instead, Goldstein laments the president’s flouting of the Constitution or the federal scheme (not quite sure which).

Can we agree that federalism, like freedom, is long dead, and is the stuff of nostalgia?

The other thing I wonder about is the ease with which my fellow Americans offend native Americans (Indians), as opposed to the crippling fear they have of saying anything that might make blacks mad.

It’s to the credit of native Americans that they are less menacing.