Category Archives: Natural Law

MORE Exchanges On Mark Levin

Constitution, Media, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, States' Rights

Contrary to ML, the libertarian reader who was annoyed with me for giving Mark Levin the time of the day (a premise with which I’d agree were Mr. Levin anything like the rest of the radio mouths; the tele-twits and teletwat, but he isn’t)—another reader, a fan of Mr. Levin, is angry that I dared question The Great One.

He quotes this from “Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation”:

The healthiest and most intuitive response to deep-seated, irreconcilable unhappiness – political or personal – is not to hold a constitutional convention, Mark Levin, but to leave, to exit the abusive relationship.

The reader then swats me down, as follows:

Ms. Mercer,
Have you even read The Liberty Amendments? Doesn’t appear so and it doesn’t appear that many posters on the WND website have either. Article V is pretty clear and so is the logical and rational arguments made by Mark Levin. Whose credentials, I would put up against all. Your gratuitous remarks about this “radio mouth” are vapid.

You, along with James McClellan portend there is “no mechanism to compel congress to act” (?) Wrong. Both of you need to go back and reread Article V again. It says “shall”. Not maybe, or might, or could, or probably. SHALL. There’s no gray area here and congressional involvement is limited to 1. putting the process in motion and 2. “as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed”. That’s IT. Just because the states historically, haven’t exercised this power means nothing. They certainly have the power to do so.

At the Mt. Vernon Assembly back in early December 32 states had representatives in attendance. This assembly was put in motion way before Mr. Levin ever started talking about his book. People are starting to wake up and understand the “real and present danger” this country is in. Mark Levin concisely lays out how the process would work, what the process would include and how it would be enforced. He also proposes amendments that are directly relevant to the runaway government we have today. If the convention devolved into the so called “runaway convention” enough states withdrawing from the convention to breach that 34 state threshold would end it right there. 33 States voting for “something” would mean nothing. Not to mention the 38 state threshold for ratification.

What is inexplicable Ms. Mercer is your wrongful rationale to shelve our Constitution and in turn, OUR country. Perhaps you should rethink the affinity you have for a nation that welcomed you with open arms with rights and freedoms unfamiliar to your homeland of South Africa. And while “the healthiest and most intuitive response to deep seated, irreconcilable unhappiness” may be best for personal reasons, it’s absurd to apply that rationale to this issue. The analogy is useless.

In closing, we don’t have to wait for a runaway convention. We have one NOW. A “coup d’etat”. Without one shot fired. This regime is pushing lawlessness and a quite anarchy so as to bring this nation to the breaking point. Which is exactly what they want. Don’t think for a split second that obama is not frothing at the mouth to implode this society so that he can declare Marshall Law and do away with the rest of the Bill of Rights. What other plausible explanations can there be for this man’s actions and those of his party? Our Constitution is being amended unlawfully on a daily basis and should be abundantly clear to anyone. We can do this the civil, lawful way or the uncivil way. Do you think that BO would just let us walk away? You’re not paying attention if you answered yes.

Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments provides the answer and the road map. Not the absolute anarchy that would come about from your solution.

Time constraints being what they are, here are some of the points made in my short answer (I chose to leave unchallenged the silly, quintessentially Republican notion that the unraveling began with Obama):

Dear D.,

I appreciate your passion, if not your emphasis on legalistic, positivist law, as opposed to the natural law. The first has failed us: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=743

It all began with Mr. Levin’s hero, Abe: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=586 & http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=31

MORE here.

As to your claims about secession causing “anarchy”: The only reason chaos—which is what I presume you mean by anarchy—could come about when people, peacefully, go their separate ways is because the central government would launch Total War against peaceful separatists. Consider that! You and Levin would argue that such a war is legal. Maybe so, but such a war [like the War of Northern Aggression] is never naturally licit.

The great Yorktown Patriot Dr. James McClellan has long since passed. He was easily and indisputably one of THIS country’s greatest constitutional scholars. More on McClellan’s constitutional take on secession: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=718

Mark would have to agree, however great our disagreement, that this immigrant is a patriot. He should appreciate any immigrant who has fought for the American Creed as this immigrant has for so long.

I appreciate Mark as a potentially powerful anti-establishment force (witness the fact that he is seldom asked to join the Idiocracy on TV), and as the intellectual the rest (Savage, Prager, Medved, Rush, Laura, etc.) are not.

Best,
ILANA Mercer

Ex Post Facto Law’s The Norm … In A Banana Republic

Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Government, Justice, Law, Natural Law, Taxation, The State

The federal and state governments operate increasingly on an unconstitutional, ex post facto basis. What does this mean? It means that despite the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, in particular—it states that “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”—actions are often criminalized after they are committed.

In any case, it is unconstitutional to criminalize actions that were legal when committed.

It’s what banana republics do.

But since the US Constitution is a dead-letter law, victims of the state have no way of foreseeing or controlling how vague law will be bent and charges changed in the course of seeking a desired prosecutorial outcome.

What prompts this post today, in particular (you can be sure that every day US prosecutors proceed on dodgy, ex post facto legal grounds)?

The California Franchise Tax Board, the state’s version of the IRS, “[has] determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.”

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco.

Read more.

UPDATED: Independence And The Declaration of Secession

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, libertarianism, Natural Law, Taxation

“Independence And The Declaration of Secession” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“Tea party,” “patriot,” “Constitution,” and “Bill of Rights”: these keywords are the very stuff of the American Revolution, which took place during the last half of the 18th century. They are also some of the words that cued the “Infernal Revenue Service” (IRS) to target the philosophical descendants of the Revolutionaries, in 21st century America.

Had they been aware that in 2012 not all Americans are created equal, the targeted not-for-profit organizations, aiming to fly beneath the IRS radar, would have also avoided any references to “The Declaration of Independence,” whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate as Independence Day.

Ordinary Americans of a certain age are already in compliance with the anti-American program carried out by their government, Democratic or Republican. Having been conditioned by our country’s many Orwellian Ministries of Truth, they celebrate July 4th firecrackers, fire-sale prices and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. As this column once remarked, contemporary Americans are less likely to read The Declaration of Independence now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. As historian David Hackett Fischer recounted in “Liberty and Freedom,” printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet.” And John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, urged that the “people be universally informed.”

And so the people were.

“From the beginning,” wrote James McClellan, “American Constitution-makers had the general support of their countrymen. The principles of government they espoused during the Revolution and implemented after the British surrender at Yorktown were widely shared in every town and village. It was on the basis of this remarkable consensus, this serene moment of creation, this fertile ground of American political experience, that the new Constitution was established.” (Page 59) …

The complete column is “Independence And The Declaration of Secession.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column

Happy Independence Day.

UPDATE (7/5): LETTERS I LIKE.

The great historian of the South, Dr. Clyde Wilson:

From: Clyde Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 4:37 AM
To: Ilana Mercer
Subject:

Dear Lady, in re your Declaration of Independence column. In my last years of teaching I found that students not only had never read the Declaration (or the Constitution) but that they could not begin to understand them. They could only give canned responses. Sad but true.
Best wishes, Clyde Wilson

WND reader Steve Tanton:

• 5 hours ago @ WND Comments:

“Other than the short the article on July 1 in the Washington Times by Allen West, this is the most significant article on the true meaning of Independence Day that I have come across this year.”

Beware The Country Of ‘Absurdistan’

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, History, Liberty, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Reason, Republicans, States' Rights, War

My good friend professor Thomas DiLorenzo is on fire today, at LRC.Com, decrying the actions of the “Biggest Bully in the World.” The strictly anti-bullying US government—its overweening, unconstitutional reach extends to educating kids about bullying, or, as Tom puts it, “putting YOUR money where THEIR mouths are by funding all kinds of anti-bullying programs in schools”—is intercepting airplanes not its own, and bullying sovereign governments, all in an attempt to corner a heroic, powerless young man called Edward Snowden.

Then, “National Neocon Review” has been working overtime to justify the crimes of mass murderer Abe Lincoln. But Tom DiLorenzo will have none of it. He smacks that lot down good and proper with foolproof arguments from natural law and logic:

… Studying and writing about Lincoln and the “Civil War” is not, as National Neocon Review implies, the same as attending a football game where one roots for one team or the other. It is about discovering the truth. Criticizing Lincoln does not make one a supporter of the Confederate government any more than criticizing FDR makes one a supporter of the Nazi government. We are supposed to believe that because the Confederate government suspended habeas corpus it is simply irrelevant that the Lincoln regime was a constitutional nightmare. We are supposed to believe the cartoonish Harry Jaffa, says National Neocon Review, when he says that Lincoln never did a single thing that was unconstitutional, contrary to reality and the writings of several generations of scholars who preceded Jaffa. This is reminiscent of the canned response to Lincoln critics by the last generation of Lincoln cultists: Lincoln wasn’t as bad as Hitler or Stalin, they frequently pointed out. So shut up.

MORE.