Law Under Oath


Law Under Oath

publish your comments here:

SHOCKING NONFICTIONS: Headline news: I read this statement in response to Obama’s passage of a portion of the Dream Act: “[...] without a proper legislative foundation, without a proper evaluation of the impact on taxpayers, communities and the labor market, with only the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, we see here an assertion of absolute power that will simply corrupt indefinitely.” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington D.C.-based group that favors strict immigration enforcement. “The numbers from here will grow and grow. The Administration is asserting a virtually limitless new power, governed only by its own political judgment and interests. It is a dangerous violations of the civil rights of all Americans." I read every article on this subject I could get my hands on and the consensus, despite whatever position the news outlet promoted, was that the law bypassed all the steps of legislative process.

The new law: illegal immigrants under 30 who came to America illegally before they were 16 will be protected from deportation and can apply for a two-year work visa (which can be renewed indefinitely) if they have lived in the United States continuously for at least five years, have not committed any crimes, have a high school diploma (or GED equivalent), or have served (or are currently serving) in the military, was officiated without legislative process.

Steps In The Federal Legislative Process

Step 1

Bill is introduced. 

Step 2

Bill is assigned to a committee for consideration. 

Step 3

A sub-committee of the full committee considers the bill, marks it up (e.g. considers amendments) and reports it out, by majority vote of the subcommittee members. (In some cases a bill skips this step and is considered directly by the full committee.)

Step 4

The full committee considers the bill, marks it up and reports it out, by majority vote of the full committee members.

Step 5

Bill goes to the House Floor for a vote by all members. Members can offer amendments on the Floor to change the bill. A majority vote passes or rejects the amendments. Any amendments that pass become part of the bill. A final majority vote passes or fails to pass the bill.

Step 6  

The bill is sent to the Senate, where it must go through steps 2 through 5 as outlined above, in the Senate.

Step 7

After both houses of Congress pass their versions of the bill, a Conference Committee is appointed (made up of members of the House and Senate Committees that considered the bill) to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. 

Step 8

The Conference Committee reports out a compromise bill which goes back to the Floors of both the House and the Senate for consideration. 

Step 9

After passage of the Conference bill, in identical form by both the House and the Senate, the bill goes to the President for his consideration. The president either signs or vetoes the bill.

Step 10

Congress can override a Presidential veto by a 2/3 vote of both houses.

This system, to embed bills into laws, is crucial in the free world. Obama overrode the law to make a law. The law in question--certain illegal aliens shall not be deported--became a law in the minutes it took for him to think, act, announce. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the new law or not; think about how it was made and ask yourself if this is even legal (it isn’t); so how did it happen? It happened because the president disregarded the system, the law, and made a dictatorial declaration.

LIVING AND FIXED: There are two ways of looking at a type of document that contains descriptions of contracts, promises, vows, appointments, some of which are legally binding: “living” and “fixed,” or “bedrock.” You would think that any such document, especially one that is legally binding, would be fixed, unless of course there’s an agenda to manipulate the stated claims for personal or public gain. You can tell when a document is fixed by the language used to designate terms of contract or whatever else the document describes.

Two such examples are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. In the former we find the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...].” “Self-evident, equal, unalienable” are fixed terms intended to show that an idea or claim is so fundamental that it doesn’t need to be to clarified and most importantly, that it can’t be denied. From the Constitution we find the Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” contains the fixed term “infringed,” which means that no human being, government, or authority may legally interfere with an individual’s unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

How do fixed documents become living documents? The language of a living document is intended to be modified as the needs of the parties change through time. Hence, when anti-gun enthusiasts on the Supreme Court decide that it’s time to disarm the populace, they turn to the Constitution and declare it, surreptitiously, a living document subject to alternate interpretations. The examples are limitless. But there’s no denying, modifying, or changing the meaning or context of the language of, for example: “infringed.” If that word cannot be changed to mean something new, then how can any court in America, rationally, legally, or with impunity, modify the Second Amendment?

A document can only be described as “living,” i.e. intended for future modification, if the language therein so intends. Today the United States Constitution is followed using a 'living-document' view. I looked up these terms, today, in Wikipedia and found the following explanation: “The term is used when a constitution or statute is interpreted by its ability to grow and change. The opposing 'bedrock' view suggest that the constitution be followed word for word and that it be a permanent law to be followed for all time. In the 'living-document' view, the goal is to reach a point where the law is perfect, but not without the future ability to be interpreted and expanded on with the changing of the times.”

The is called pragmatism and I’ll write an article and/or a deposition on this philosophy soon (in the meantime check out my YouTube video on same). The writer suggests that this is current, sanctioned, loose constructionism, constitutional interpretation, a legally authorized method in court use, i.e. de facto, not de jure. There is no such mandate that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States be interpreted as living rather than bedrock documents. I would argue the reverse. The method for interpretation depends upon who’s sitting on the bench; the method is decided upon by the individual. The Wikipedia article was written by a pragmatist and is littered with “needs additional citations for verification.”

ALEXANDER SELKIRK: (1676–1721) was a Scottish sailor who spent four years and four months as a castaway after being marooned on an uninhabited island in 1704. The island is situated off the coast of Chile in the archipelago of Juan Fernández in the South Pacific and was renamed Robinson Crusoe Island inspired by the 1719 novel which in turn inspired the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks. Selkirk was concerned about the seaworthiness of his ship and the captain, tired of his dissent, left him on the island with a musket, some clothes, gunpowder, carpenter’s tools, a knife, and a Bible. Selkirk’s anxiety proved true because the ship did founder off the coast of Columbia and those who survived were taken prisoner by the Spanish.

Selkirk’s story makes me wonder why I need stuff superfluous to a comfortable survival.

Obama, for example, insists that excess money belongs to the collective people, i.e. the government, and should be seized and re-distributed at the government’s discretion. He doesn’t say how much is excess exactly, but we do know that any amount over $200 thousand is seized at 50 percent. Romney asserts that middle income is around $200 to $250 thousand, i.e. the amount the average American needs to survive presumably with home ownership and the bills incurred therein.

Regardless of what the average American needs to live reasonably without threat of losing basic necessities, seizing one’s legally procured income is nothing short of extortion. That said, consider the poverty threshold for the millions of Americans living below that $200 thousand level, many of whom live month-to-month on bank “courtesy payments” of overdrawn accounts. Certainly these people do not have everything they need, whereas we might assume that those at the $200 thousand level do have everything they need. My guess is that if we took away 50 percent of Obama’s income above $200 thousand he would not be able to live comfortably, even with a nod towards necessities. How then, does the individual living on the typical disability or retirement income of less than $2 thousand a month, not more than $20 thousand a year, make a living?

Journalist Richard Steele wrote of Selkirk in The Englishman: "This plain Man's Story is a memorable Example, that he is happiest who confines his Wants to natural Necessities; and he that goes further in his Desires, increases his Wants in Proportion to his Acquisitions.” Selkirk was content and composed when he was rescued.

How true is such a possibility in an America in which new money, fiat, fake money unrelated to any physical quantity, typically gold, is printed at the whim of a cartel of Socialist businessmen (the Federal Reserve) whenever the need for more arises? Fiat money is backed by inflation--an erosion in the purchasing power of money--so the difference between what a product is actually worth relative to the consumer price index of the whole economy (CPI)--a gallon of milk, say $2--suddenly costs $4 in order to pay back the economy for what was borrowed, created, by printing dollar bills that inflated the actual worth of goods in the economic marketplace. Normally that money ($10 trillion) would filter through the system from the banks to the individual who needs the extra $2 for the milk, but the banks are locking up that excess money in their vaults, fearing inflation. When the dam breaks, there’s going to be way too much money chasing too few goods, causing rampant hyper-inflation and collapse.

The people make up that difference. When the government gave our tax dollars to private business, General motors for example, to bail them out of debt, GM promised to pay it and the inflationary amount back by creating jobs in expanded American manufacturing plants; instead GM expanded its operations in China such that the dollar amount, but not the inflationary amount, was paid back, sticking the American people with the inflationary debt. Such a system cannot stand; it will fail, fall, topple.

Selkirk was resourceful. There were feral cats on the island which he domesticated and slept with to ward off attacks by rats at night. At first he kept to the beach because of the strange sounds from the interior which he thought were monsters. Once he ventured into the island’s interior his situation improved. He made huts out of pimento trees, clothes out of goat skins, a knife out of a barrel. Sailors from previous vessels had introduced goats, turnips, cabbage, and black pepper plants, all of which were found upon venturing inland.

Homeless people venture inland, out of the back country and into the cities. They visit the offices of public assistance and procure hotel rooms, throw-away cell phones, food stamps, and cash allowances. The government prints money for such purposes and collects the inflation by taxing the people who work. Most new money is generated by the private sector because the public sector simple recirculates the money collected by businesses and workers pouring money into government and public sector employment. If everyone worked for the government, as is predicted, the dollars generated would simply be churning around in a machine powered by its internal work, pay, and taxes. As the machine revolved, with nothing to feed it from the outside, it would eventually reach maximum load, and like a washing machine at end-of-cycle, spin a few more times, and stop.

The truly impoverished person, the one without inflationary welfare, living on a limited income, what can that person do to procure the goods and services he needs? I’ve lived in some affluent neighborhoods. I grew up in a family that enjoyed Romney’s standard of a middle class income in the 1970s. I lived recently in a city where the affluent put their superfluous goods on the sidewalk for weekly trash collection. I hunted. I found a manual typewriter worth several hundred antique auction dollars; I found a new Ikea chair on which the owner, during assembly, had attached the seat backwards and, fed up with its stupid design, discarded; I found two headsets; I found a box of Wedgwood dishes and a flatware set; I found a case of glasses; I found a complete set of John Burroughs’ “In The Catskills”; I found four intact wicker chairs; I found a wooden filing cabinet with key and a cedar chest. Once, my church paid my debt. In the grocery store, the clerk gave me 40 cents I didn’t have, to even his register. A friend dropped by with a $20 bill. Men often take care of women and children, unconditionally.

This stuff trickled down through the system. Why would the government need to seize property and give it to the poor when people are only too willing to lay it down in the street? Granted, I can’t hall it to my middle class mansion--for that I need Romney’s middle income--but if I want more necessities, like Selkirk venturing inland, all I have to do is wait until the night before trash pickup.

Venezuela: (2016). No government can exist without a private sector producing goods in a free competitive market. Venezuela is collapsing under the weight of its own government and it didn’t take long--just a few decades of government overreach--combined with a draught to create mile-long lines for a bottle of milk and a loaf of bread. The officials at the top of the socialist-enforced take-over of private property, jobs, and healthcare are not affected by the extreme poverty and hunger engendered by socialism; they have plenty of money saved and concentrated at the top, wealth extorted from the people via taxes, and their children still go to the best schools, and their homes are behind security walls. Meanwhile the death rate is so high in the streets and the lack of doctors so acute that bodies are blowing up in the morgues. How did this happen? Stealthily. The government started by raising taxes, opening borders, national healthcare, free college, and eventually a national take-over of crops because it cost the private entrepreneur and farmer so much to run their businesses as the business tax rose and rose, that government decided the owners were inept and moved in to manage what was left after all the profits went to the government. Sound familiar? If it doesn’t just take a look at the last eight years: One percent economic growth in America--unprecedented since WWII--fallen from 5-6% historically. As Obama, safe and wealthy in Washington, with his phone and a pen made illegal executive decisions that violated the Constitution, enforced bill after bill that took over the private sector (The bottom tier pays while the top tier enjoys). Look at ObamaCare: a system designed to redistribute wealth, a system that forces 60-year-old couples to buy birth control, transgender operations, and abortions in a one-size-fits-all package that makes these services affordable for other people who want them. The same methodology applies to school systems and every other government-run program: one size fits all for the bottom tier, i.e. everyone but our elected and non-elected officials. Hillary will radically extend government overreach with amnesty, open borders, single-payer healthcare, free college, etc. Sound familiar now? The outcome is always the same and inevitable even without a draught: Venezuela.