Now that the Constitution is all the rage and in vogue, please allow me dear readers, to throw my worthless two cents into the mix. And may I add and assure you dear readers that in this day and age of the excessive, statist, liberal progressive, big government devaluation and debasement of our currency; especially so with its current round of devaluation, that my worthless two cents, in fact and indeed, any two cents at all, is now barely worth a fraction of a cent, let alone two whole cents.
Nevertheless, this article is not about the arcane minutiae of currency manipulation or “the Fed” or monetary policy et al, ad nauseam. Which admittedly makes my foregoing comments rather snide, smarmy and gratuitously flippant and facetious and sarcastic too — well, guilty as charged. Just couldn’t help myself cause I just love to annoy the hell out of the editors here. (Some of whom I must surmise will respond with a very stern and severe admonition “we are not amused.”)
Rather, this article is about the Constitution and in particular, Article I, Section 10 and its seeming significance and importance in the Arizona controversy surrounding SB 1070, Judge Bolton’s ruling on it, and the Obama administration’s consequent demonization of the state of Arizona; and even more incredibly, of President Obama and Attorney General Holder, of their waging a legalistic and litigious “war” against that state. I think one proper, apt and accurate word for this is “unprecedented” while yet another might be reasonably offered as simply “lunatic.” But the phrase “it’s so liberal-progressive, intellectually, academically and professorially f...ing smart, it’s f...ing stupid” might also suffice as well.
But why now, why I am addressing this issue at this point in time? Hasn’t it already been decided — sort of? Well yes, but just last night I was perusing the Constitution; I do that from time to time you know (which proves without any doubt whatsoever, reasonable or otherwise, what a true intellectual weirdo/geek/nerd/dweeb/idiot/moron I truly am). At any rate, when I came across Section 10 of Article I, I saw something which aroused and greatly piqued my curiosity (in fact, it hit me like a veritable lightning bolt/ton of bricks).
Eureka I said to myself, because if one goes to its last and third paragraph, one will see that it clearly states:
“That no State shall, without the Consent of Congress,” blah-blah-blah-blah, “...engage in War, UNLESS actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Irvin,
Dan Miller, who used to write a lot more frequently here, is a retired lawyer who can cite the relevant case law on the section of the constitution you quote. Having gone to law school myself, I CAN tell you that the law is what the judge says it is. So, federal courts can gut sections of the constitution if they wish.
Just a thought for you to consider....
2 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Ruvy,
Of course, you're right, absolutely fucking right-on, cannot agree with you enough. But that's what's so novel and unique about the Tea Party and I hope this new Congress, that politicians, shyster scumbag lawyers, lawmakers and especially liberal, commie judges actually might pay attention to both the Constitution and the Law itself. What a fucking novel idea!
You talk about arbitrary and capricious, fickle and petulant, petty, officious and Martinet-like tyranny, and especially the Queen at the Madhatter's tea party; that sadly is what the liberal-progressive movement and the liberal lefties and pinkos in America have done to our laws, to our Constitution, to our nation; for almost a solid century to date.
Let us pray for a new order of a rule of laws, and not of men. Or of men who scrupulously follow those laws and the Constitution itself rather than their leftist, liberal agendas who create and conjure the Law to suit their own libeal-progressive, leftist ideological preferences, whims and caprices.
And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English; and not in tongues of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and mind-numbing, highly convoluted and tortured sophistic and casuistic legalese.
Am I asking too much? Unfortunately, I'm afraid I most likely am. You talk about pie-eyed Panglossian optimist, I guess that best describes me in this particular case. So what say you?
3 - zingzing
"And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English; and not in tongues of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and mind-numbing, highly convoluted and tortured sophistic and casuistic legalese.
Am I asking too much? Unfortunately, I'm afraid I most likely am. You talk about pie-eyed Panglossian optimist, I guess that best describes me in this particular case."
4 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade zingzing, I am absolutely delighted by your delicious ambiguity which I suspect and surmise is employed here to cast aspersions upon me, upon my own convoluted, prolix, verbose, stylistically ponderous, contrived and convoluted language or do I see too much in your quoting of me, of my own fucking words? What the fuck, is you done being a fucking wise guy or what?
Paranoid? Who the fuck is paranoid. I ain't got nooh steen-kingk paraah-noy-yah, I doan got-tah show you no certificate of diagnosis of steen-kingk parah-noy-yah. Aye cabron, pinch-ay caldaron.
5 - Clavos
And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English...
An excellent idea!
6 - Tommy Mack
Actually, Irv, it is your "ambiguity which I suspect and surmise is employed here..." and your "own convoluted, prolix, verbose, stylistically ponderous, contrived and convoluted language" that buries any thoughtful point you might be trying to express. That and the four letter functionals.
Just saying.
7 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade commie-lib/simp, etc., etc., etc., Kurtz,
Where is you? Is you alive or dead? If the latter you need not reply, if the former - well, I guess you don't have to reply either.
I really need someone of your vile, untrustworthy, foul and truly hated nature and stature to start the feeding frenzy of the rabid- lunatic, professional left here; to attack me most viciously and so mindlessly and most gratuitously so. Where are you when I need thee?
Notice that I omitted "my ideas." Was that an inadvertent error, an unintentional and innocent mistake on my part? No, of course not, that was as purposeful and intentional as I could possibly be. Why? Because the rabid, professional left doe not criticize my ideas, but rather they prefer to attack me personally and through ad hominem smear and innuendo, etc..
So rabid, professional left, go ahead make my day. Wait a minute - correction. Make that my "fucking day!" Surely such an omission would surely be egregious and out of character!
8 - Ruvy
Having had to read appeals decisions written by judges and derive the rule therein in law school, I can tell you that many judges just don't know how to write.
The catch with legalese is that every thing in the sentence is a means by which one can squeeze out an interpretation - no matter how ridiculous. So the clear language of a decision can easily get muddled by lawyers and other bullshit artists who are trying to gut the law.
And gutting a law is not merely a function of "liberal activist" judges. It can be the activity of "conservative strict constructionists" - or of conservative radical judges intent on overturning what they don't like, come hell or high water. Consider how the 14th Amendment was interpreted with respect to school segregation for a half century, for example.
9 - Deano
Brevity. Please, for the love of God, brevity!
10 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Ruvy,
Do I detect somehow your liberal, Jewish DNA seeping through here?
Actually I concur with most of what you say, however I really don't know too much of the conservatives of the 19th century. I'm not all that sure they're as bad as you characterize them to have been. However I will say, that first and foremost the Supreme Court and hence many if not most of the inferior courts of the land, are: one, not what I would reasonably call paragons and pillars of intellectual, philosophic, moral and yes, political courage. Dred Scott is amongst the three or four worst decisions of the Supreme Court - ever.
In fact, slavery was only abolished essentially through what was initially a presidential decree, then followed somewhat slowly by the legislature and legislative process culminating with the amendment process, i.e, the 14th et al amendments.
But secondly, the court or more broadly the courts, I maintain have a sort of doctrine of ultimate infallibility not very far removed from that of the Papacy and the Vatican. And that dear Ruvy, as a certified, mean, badass, kickass misanthropic motherf....r, is a condition not very consistent nor consonant with human beings - maybe with Gods and Saints and godlike aliens from outer space and of course self-declared saints and of course, all libs qua commie-libs qua lefty-pinkos on down the commie-Marxist line; who of course are all infallible because they say so and because it's clearly written and stated in their dogma, doctrines and orthodoxies; and also of course in the blood of literally tens of millions of souls, who were the many millions of victims of those very same leftist, ideological tenants of theirs.
No, infallibility and humankind are as incompatible as oil and water. And anyone who claims or professes infallibility, is fundamentally either a fraud and charlatan or a con artist, or outright liar-manipulator or a false prophet or a rather devious and evil trickster, in essence, a commie-lib, lefty pinko, etc., etc.. (Just joking, couldn't help myself. Even it is true!)
Am fading fast, got to take me medicine and eats me spin-itchk. Will return shortly.
11 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade, well I really don't know at this point in time if you're a comrade or not; Deano,
Gah-new, so what's on your f...k..g mind? Subtle of me, unh?
Moreover, I surmise and conjecture by your line of questioning, that you are an editorial spy for the Comments editors fascistic censors. Am I right or am I right?
For the sake of brevity, I direct you to my # 4, and further direct you to the very last graff. That should be more than sufficient and completely self-explanatory.
Thank you for your substantive, brilliant, in depth analytic , well thought out and exhaustively articulated comment. And oh yes, have a nice f..k..g day.
12 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Ruvy,
Me again. Just two last, quick points.
First, it's not as relative as you depict it - that the conservative judges do it too. Well, A, if they do, then they're not very true to their conservative philosophy and ideology; and B, how many of these false conservatives are there to let us say, the liberal activist judges almost all of whom with very little exception, either create law out of whole clothe or decree it from the bench outside of the legislative establishment? Is it one to one, or one to two, or one to ten and or a lot more? I say it is the latter.
Ruvy you have to be careful here of the history of the one, of false conservative scumbags, to that of the other, liberal-lefty, judicial activist scumbags; there is nothing morally equivalent nor relative about them - they are both scumbags, only one is ten times more prevalent and effective than the other. Moral relativism is always a dangerous view and mindset, in fact I say it is purely evil, and in fact the most evil philosophy ever devised by humankind.
Secondly, I have problems with and am somewhat disquieted by the seeming inflexibility and utter rigidness of the doctrine of "stare decisis". I"ll spare you the Latin grammatical constructions herein, just suffice it to say it literally means "to let stand (or simply to be) that which has already been decided." Well, if you take that to an extreme, logical conclusion, then there is no need to enact law nor adjudicate it either - cause it's already been decided. That means that Dred Scott was allowed to be created and then allowed to stand as the law of the land.
My point is that "stare decisis" allows bad law to be protected by precedent, and good law not to overcome that bad law. It also allows Judges not to exercise some intellectual common sense and some personal, moral backbone and courage. But it can also be argued that it protects against the opposite of my argument, that it protects good law from being overcome by bad law. Well, I have to cede that, but only to a point. I hold that precedent has been used as a rather flimsy justification and excuse for bad law more often than for the good.
All of which means to say I would have most likely flunked out of Law School, and if not, would have made one hell of a lousy shyster, lowlife, scumbag, unscrupulous, soulless, money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing, lower-than-the-belly-of-a-worm, thieving, lying, blood-sucking, sleaz-oid lawyer.
13 - roger nowosielski
Decent argument, Irvin. I am for decentralization of power. Now, can you make your case in three pages or less? Never mind trying to impress your audience. Why do you even bother?
14 - Ruvy
Irvin, I would ignore Roger's comments. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
As for stare decisis, it is just necessary in a legal system if you intend to continue the system evolving instead of going back to basics every time a plaintiff appears before a judge. Most law is "neutral", that is to say neither good nor bad. On very rare occasions, a law actually rises to "good", that is to say, it actually benefits society. Social security, when it was started in 1933, might have been classified as good. Workman's compensation and overtime laws are other example of laws that might be classified as good. Notice, I said "might".
The Dredd Scott decision was bad - and it precipitated a war that effectively overruled it. Bad law often does that, and upholding bad law in a court tends to lead to violence and conflict. But the real issues that pertain here are the examples of case law that a good lawyer could bring up regarding Article I, sect. 10 of the constitution of 1787. We have not seen any examples of that yet in this comment thread.
A final point for you to chew on: most judges in the States are lousy shyster, lowlife, scumbag, unscrupulous, soulless, money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing, lower-than-the-belly-of-a-worm, thieving, lying, blood-sucking, sleaz-oid lawyers with a black robe on.
15 - Ruvy
A post final thought for you to chew on, Irvin. Legal eagles really crap all over the Latin they use as terms of art.
16 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Ruvy,
Again thanks. Actually you cleared up some of the shit concerning stare decisis for me, I think I may have actually learned something. Still moot and debatable, but I definitely learned something worthwhile of the other side of the equation.
Secondly, I too am baffled why no one, especially with some legal expertise and or training and education like yourself, hasn't entered into and added to the debate. You know of all the many commie-libs etc. at Blogcritics, who are always complaining about both of us and of our not adequately debating their so-called, supposed finer points of this or that piece of spin, propaganda or petty, quite often parochial talking point; yet when it comes to debating very important, broad and serious, fundamental issues of the Rule of Law and our very Constitution itself - they're no where to be found.
And finally, I wouldn't have known if not for those black robes - thanks again Ruvy. And Sholom.
17 - Ruvy
In this case, the "rule of law" is to be found in the case law. Now, unless you actually have access to a legal library (or a lot of scratch), getting to read case law can be difficult. But this might help you. However, if you look carefully, you will find that the last part of the article you refer to does not seem to have been covered in case law. If that is so, you may be breaking fresh ground in American law. Not bad, boychik, not bad. If you do cut this down to a page or two (that's all you really need to cover the facts of the case as you are making it) and submit it as a note to a lawyer (or law professor) friend you have, you might actually get somewhere.
18 - Andy Marsh
After reading this all I can say is that you should change your name to Mr. Thesaurus!
Having said that, I enjoyed the read!
Thanks!
19 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear (I don't as of yet know whether you're a goddamn commie-lib/simp, lefty-pinko, commie etc., again, as of yet; so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt for the time being) Andy,
Thank you for your kind comment. I also want to sincerely welcome you, and ingratiate myself with you so that you may feel free to discuss or add your worthless, goddamn two cents to the mix if you so damn well please.
Again, welcome to my f...k..g world Andy. This is your lucky day, cause I am by far the baddest, meanest, kickass "misanthropic motherfucker" on the block - if I do have to proudly say so myself.
Swabby? And a goddamn "lifer" to boot. Well, as a former, combat-wounded Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, I won't hold that against you. Yes I begrudgingly and reluctantly admit and cede the point that we Marines, we real warriors, need squids and swabbies to chauffeur us around the world, so thanks a whole f..k..g lot.
And look here, just because you got an absolutely beautiful family and an adorable little granddaughter, doesn't mean you got to be a doting father and granddad - at your age too. My God, what are you, just barely forty something? Nice going, but don't let that go to your head.
If you haven't guessed by now, I was ana E-5 Sergeant, made it in 2 years and a few months and served for four, that is to say, did my four in the Corps. And as you must gather by now, I have never been more of a Marine and a gung-ho m...th..rf..k..r at that, than I am today. So, Semper Fi (even if you don't deserve it). And by the way, that video of yours on how to scientifically determine the gender of birds is absolutely spot, right on. I'm still laughing. So welcome aboard, but be forewarned, Blogcritics is just crawling with creepy crawler commie-lib/simps and commie pinko-lefties, etc..
20 - Irvin F Cohen
To the Comments Editor, fascist editor or editors who just recently deleted my original thread # 19, posted at 1:38 p.m. And comrade Roger's thread which was also numbered # 19, which means to say you deleted his as I wrote mine.
What is this? Some sort of Kafkaesque, Orwellian joke?! What is it with you people?
Why did you delete entirely what were in essence two rather tame and innocuous threads of both Roger's and mine? This is utterly and absolutely insane. Petty, arbitrary and capricious, and sinister and devious, underhanded and tyrannical to boot!
Why do you hide behind the utter deceit and cowardice of your utter anonymity? How cowardly and deceitful, devious and vindictive can you possibly be?
Is it that you want to prove a point, to show this uppity conservative American, that you have the power to squash every word of his no matter how innocuous or how controversial it might be? Is that it, you got to flex your bureaucratic muscle in order to teach me an object lesson in your utter bureaucratic power to censor me at any time you damn well please, on any flimsy pretext whatsoever, on any petulant whim or caprice of yours you machinate or conjure?
Have you no shame, have you no honor, have you no integrity whatsoever?!
I demand that you re-instate both Roger's and my threads immediately
I also demand that you explain yourselves.
I also demand that in the future, you give notice before you so tyrannically and dictatorially, and so sneakily, arbitrarily and capriciously delete or erase any comment whatsoever. And that you give good cause for your actions. Again, that you explain yourselves and provide decent recents for your actions.
And I demand that you not delete this thread, why? Because that would be utter, proof positive of your utter fascism. And yes I have a copy of this thread.
21 - Irvin F Cohen
My # 20
Correction. Next to last graff, very last sentence:
...decent RECENTS...should read "decent REASONS."
22 - Clavos
Umm, Irv:
Andy's been around BC for years -- far longer than you have...
23 - Clavos
Oh, and BTW, Irv:
I made E-5 (Army Buck Sgt.) in just over 1 year and three months.
24 - Dr Dreadful
And in fact, Andy was the BC Politics resident curmudgeon long before you crash-landed on the scene, Irv.
Long time no read, Andy. Hope this wasn't just a flying visit.
25 - El Bicho
"I am by far the baddest, meanest, kickass 'misanthropic motherfucker' on the block - if I do have to proudly say so myself."
And if you have to say so yourself, it's likely that you aren't