The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Whodunit? Who “Meddled” with Our American Democracy? (Part 2)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_601099403

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Not a day goes by when the liberal media don’t telegraph to the world that a “Trumpocracy” is destroying American democracy. Conspicuous by its absence is a pesky fact: Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

One of the ways in which the republic was destroyed was through the slow sundering of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The 10th was meant to guarantee constitutional devolution of power.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The de facto demise of the 10th has resulted in “constitutional” consolidation.

Fair enough, but is that enough? A perceptive Townhall.com reader was having none of it.

In response to “Whodunit? Who ‘Meddled’ With Our American Democracy” (Part 1), the reader upbraided this writer:

“Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”

In other words, to advance the erosion of the 10th in explaining who did our republic in, without mentioning the 14th: this was an omission on the writer’s part.

The reader is admirably correct about Incorporation-Doctrine centralization.

Not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to concede that the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine have obliterated the Constitution’s federal scheme, as expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment.

What does this mean?

You know the drill but are always surprised anew by it. Voters pass a law under which a plurality wishes to live in a locality. Along comes a U.S. district judge and voids the law, citing a violation of the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

For example: Voters elect to prohibit local government from sanctioning gay marriage. A U.S. district judge voids voter-approved law for violating the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

These periodical contretemps around gay marriage, or the legal duty of private property owners to cater these events, are perfectly proper judicial activism. It flows from the 14th Amendment.

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.

Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of a judiciary. Yet not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to cop to this constitutional fait accompli.

The gist of it: Jeffersonian constitutional thought is no longer in the Constitution; its revival unlikely.

A Court System Centralized

For another example of the endemic usurpation of The People, rendering the original Constitutional scheme obsolete, take the work of the generic jury. With his description of the relationship between jury and people, American scholar of liberty Lysander Spooner conjures evocative imagery.

A jury is akin to the “body of the people.” Trial by jury is the closest thing to a trial by the whole country. Yet courts in the nation’s centralized court system, the Supreme Court included, are in the business of harmonizing law across the nation, rather than allowing communities to live under laws they author, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

States’ Rights All But Obliterated

Like juries, states had been entrusted with the power to beat back the federal government and void unconstitutional federal laws.

States’ rights are “an essential Americanism,” wrote Old Rightist Frank Chodorov. The Founding Fathers as well as the opponents of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, agreed on the principle of divided authority as a safeguard to the rights of the individual.

Duly, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison perfected a certain doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. “The Virginia Resolutions,” explains historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “spoke of the states’ rights to ‘interpose’ between the federal government and the people of the states; the Kentucky Resolutions used the term nullification—the states, they said, could nullify federal laws that they believed to be unconstitutional.”

“Jefferson,” emphasized Woods, “considered states’ rights a much more important and effective safeguard of people’s liberties than the ‘checks and balances’ among the three branches of the federal government.”

And for good reason. While judicial review was intended to curb Congress and restrain the Executive, in reality, the judicial, legislative and executive unholy federal trinity has simply colluded, over time, in an alliance that has helped abolish the 10th Amendment.

Founding Faith Expunged

And how well has First Amendment jurisprudence served constitutionalists?

Establishment-clause cases are a confusing and capricious legal penumbra. Sometimes displays of the Hebraic Decalogue or manger scene are taken to constitute the establishment of a state religion. Other times not.

This body of law forever teeters on conflating the injunction against the establishment of a state religion with an injunction against the expression of faith—especially discriminating against the founding faith in taxpayer-supported spaces.

The end result has been the expulsion of religion from the public square and the suppression therein of freedom of religion.

On the topic of religious freedom, Jefferson was prolific, too. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a crowning achievement for which he wished to be remembered, along with the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia.

Jefferson interpreted “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof”—as confirms by David N. Meyer, author of Jefferson’s Constitutional Thought—to guarantee both “an absolute free exercise of religion and an absolute prohibition of an establishment of religion.”

Yet somehow, the kind of constitutional thought that carries legal sway today prohibits expressions of faith or displays of a civilizing moral code in government-controlled spheres. Given my libertarian view of government’s immoral modus operandi, I find this amusingly apropos. Still, this is not what Jefferson had in mind for early Americans.

Indeed, why would anyone, bar Nancy Pelosi and her party, object to “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not commit adultery, steal or covet?” The Ten Commandments can hardly be perceived as an instrument for state proselytization.

Nevertheless, the law often takes displays of the Decalogue or the nativity scene on tax-payer funded property as an establishment of a state religion.

“I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercise,” Jefferson expatiated.

ORDER IT NOW

He then gets to the soul of the subject: “This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion but also from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states [or to the people] the powers not delegated to the U.S.”

So, dear reader, if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that the Russians didn’t deep-six our republic of private property rights and radical decentralization; we did.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Constitutional Theory 
Hide 117 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    THE “GAY MARRIAGE” RACKET AND THE “EQUAL RIGHTS FRAUDSTERS”

    Thanks for the interesting article, Madam.

    There are many liberals who are trying to argue in support of “gay marriage” claiming that it is protected under the constitution under the “equal rights” clause.

    If “equal rights” is to be taken literally and if it means therefore that gays can also “marry” each other (of the same gender) because a man can marry a woman, then why can’t a man marry his sister–if both sides consent? Or marry 5 women simultaneously—if they all consent? They have “equal rights” too. Why should they be denied their preferred lifestyle if gays can have theirs?

    The liberals cannot answer that question.

    “Equal rights” simply means that the govt. cannot discriminate against one compared to another SIMILARLY SITUATED according to a list of criteria. The list of criteria the govt. can use can be quite long and is for the govt. to set.

    For liberals, scamming is Job 1.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @smellyoilandgas
  2. you nailed it. well written.

  3. The function of the Supreme Court could have been better performed by a jury. Any literate person can know what the Constitution says. But only nine people on earth can know what it means? Political judges have given us a heap of questionable decisions where the Constitution used to be.

    In any case – nothing could have saved federalism from Abraham Lincoln. These united states became the united states at Appomattox. The Constitution is long dead. That’s why they had to make up the ridiculous notion of a “living document”.

  4. Sad, but true. Thanks, Ilana.

  5. Tbbh says:

    Necessary and proper and general welfare clauses destroyed the bill of rights before they were written. Federalists wrote the constitution, as most of the anti-federalists walked out. The whole thing was a bait and switch, but then, they were supposed to amend the articles of confederation, not write a new constitution.

    Federalists grudgingly wrote a bill of rights because they knew it would have no teeth and the fedgov would be supreme in everything. Kept the people from mutinying by pretending to give them inalienable rights.

  6. Well written, well studied, well argued. I learned something.

    The fantasy platform that – I’d be willing to wager – could restore federalism would have a minimum condition and a perfect condition. The minimum condition would be to up-level the states to 7-11 regions. Federalism as it was imagined and argued had 13 states. 50 states are too dilute to stand up to either the federal government or to major corporations and have degenerated into sucking up to all of the above. Their role as incubators of diverse, pluralist culture has been cleansed and replaced. 7 major, self-governing regions, accurately represents geographic social realities and gives backbone to regions that wish to push back against prevailing zeitgeists.

    The perfect condition – which stands to address the matter Mercer raises – is that SCOTUS itself would undergo reform – and if there were 7 regions, there’d be 7 SCOTUS’s, with governors and senates of each region appointing their own judges to interpret the national constitution. There might be a role for a super-SCOTUS, but it’s charter would be narrowly tailored.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
    , @TomSchmidt
  7. The 14th amendment was to expressly prohibit the states from reintroducing slavery or any way discriminate against feed slaves.

    The Brown decision was to that very issue. How we have mangled that into murdering children in the womb defending legal marriage between to people of the same sex, and denying the freedom to express religious faith has more to do with the peculiar notions the dominant population has about getting their way at any cost.

    The south fired the first shots in anger and they got a response. That war increased the power of the federal government — subsequent continued violations against certain populations required federal involvement as the south and the states refused to ensure the protections of US citizens.

    It would have been a fascinating debate — cessation from the union — the south made it a war from the outset and shorted any discussion, and that is unfortunate.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Echoes of History
  8. The Hebraic Ten Commandments includes a prohibition to working one day per week (Exodus 20:8-11), with the penalty being death (Exodus 35:2). Do we start executing everybody who works all weekend at Home Depot and Applebees and your local hospital?

    Jefferson thought the Hebraic to be “a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family of god of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.”[*]

    No need to kiss Jew ass, Ilana; TJ didn’t.

    P.S. Which 10 Commandments? Jefferson mocked the Bible as “defective and doubtful”[**] for having two completely different versions.

    [*] Letter to William Short, 4 August 1820 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1438

    [**] “Where got we the ten commandments? the book indeed gives them to us verbatim. but where did it get them? for itself tells us they were written by the finger of god on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses: it specifies those on the 2d set of tables in different form and substance, but still without saying how the others were recovered. but the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been plaid with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. in the New testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. it is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
    -Letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0083

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Them Guys
  9. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    LaughOutLoud

    Conservatives really should stop their inane and useless drivel about the constitution.

    The constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court judges say it is.

    That’s it.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  10. Seen from this side of the Atlantic the USA never was a democracy.
    Never understood the difference between democrats and republicans, until a USA friend explained it ‘democrats, new money, republicans, old money’.
    The USA truly is an American state, as in south America, two groups of rich people battle for power, their weapon: money.
    The district system, with gerrymeandering, blocks democracy.
    In any European country there are many political parties, with different ideologies.
    No registering for votes, anyone in the register of a municipality automatically is sent voting papers.
    The USA constitution, something archaic, from the time federal duties were little more than defending the country.
    A High Court that stands above politics, the EU has the same problem, the EU also is not a democracy.
    One can see this in how Brussels tries to interfere in still democratic countries as Hungary, tries, Soros had to move his Hungarian office to Berlin, for the time being.
    So also here, money rules, since in 1997 the nations allowed free movement of capital.
    But maybe the USA is changing, outsider Trump was elected.
    Yet, he also is rich.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  11. Realist says:

    Not a day goes by when the liberal media don’t telegraph to the world that a “Trumpocracy” is destroying American democracy. Conspicuous by its absence is a pesky fact: Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

    Yes, had this country continued as conceived it might have had a chance.

    In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote.

  12. Respect says:

    The ” democracy ” NATO countries pretend to have degenerated into an ochlocracy long time ago .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

  13. So, dear reader, if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that the Russians didn’t deep-six our republic of private property rights and radical decentralization; we did.

    No, “we” did not. For example, I never had a thing to do with it and neither did anyone else reading any of this. The “Federalists” were whodunit. The cornstitution was a radically centralizing document and “our” subsequent rulers merely expanded and maintained the fraud. Lincoln and FDR provide glaring proof.

    The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a’ contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. (Emphasis in the original.)

    -Lysander Spooner, No Treason: No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority, p1. (1870)

    http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf

    BTW, what’s so great about “democracy” anyway?

  14. For those inflicted with the democracy fetish.:

    When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable.

    - Herbert Spencer, Social Statics [1851]. chap 20, The Right to Ignore the State, p 210

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spencer-social-statics-1851

    Coercion is inherent in all “-ocracies.”

  15. Excellent article, thank you!

  16. Jake says:

    As this is yet another essential article by Ilana Mercer, I expect that the SPLC, the ADL, GLAAD, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Open Borders Foundation will send out their hired lackeys to post comments here that she is not to be trusted because she is a Jew.

    If Mercer is correct in asserting that “Jeffersonian constitutional thought is no longer in the Constitution; its revival unlikely” because the 14th Amendment expelled it anytime the Feds want it expelled (and she is), then there can be NO reform of the nation that has any merit without a repeal of the 14th Amendment, which would require people rejecting, even damning, the original Republican Party and Honest Abe Lincoln and their war to prevent secession and thereby create a union of perpetual force.

    When you grasp that, you will know why to any decent Neocon, Robert E. Lee and his compatriots are to be damned while even Leon Trotsky can be praised at least in opposition to Old Right (meaning anti-imperialist and de-centralizing Right) figures and ideas.

  17. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rational

    I suppose the argument against applying the legal reasoning that requires that same sex couples have the right to marriage to polygamous or incestuous marriages is in the very definition of legal marriage which – presumably – allows only one spouse at a time and does not allow the marriage of siblings. Anyone know the legal literature or case law?

    • Replies: @Raj
  18. “Our” democracy? Mercer may have some claim to South Africa or Israel, but not America. No thanks.

  19. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    It’s true that the 14th Amendment was used in the Brown v Board of Ed decision, but it was a stretch for the Supreme Court to do so. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 and for nearly 100 years segregation was the accepted law of the land. If the men who wrote the Amendment, then forced it down the throats of the former Confederate States allowed segregation to exist, even in many Northern States, obviously the Amendment wasn’t meant to force integration. The Brown decision was plainly wrong, based on law, but at least it made liberals feel good about themselves, and that’s the important thing.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  20. @Respect

    In my experience the Netherlands was until say 2000 a democratic country, for internal politics.
    Of course, we paid tribute to the leader of the so called free world, the leader who saved us from Hitler and protected us against USSR/Russia.
    We bought USA weapons, even if, cruise misseles, we were not allowed to use them on our initiative.
    We allowed USA atomic bombs in our land, and USA fighter jets.
    But, as a small country, what can you do ?
    Since 2000 our sovereignty is going away, what is called government is no more than executing Brussel directives, alas also things that where internal, pensions, social security, migration, even our budget.
    Since 2012 Brussels’ civil servants are permanent in our ministry of finance.
    Our parliament is no more than yes men, busy with trifles, such as how many deer can be shot.
    So more and more voters do not bother to vote any more, we have in effect a two party system, those pro EU, and those against EU.
    The against EU votes are increasing, but very far from a majority, should we now have an election, maybe 35 of the 150 seats.

  21. The answer to the destruction of America is found in the Protocols of Zion and the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and the control of America by the Zionists.

  22. @Respect

    Awwww …. did oo find a kool new word that tickled your little vibrant rear end?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  23. anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Why don’t you write about the massacre of Palestinians by the Zionist tribe?

    Zionist jews in large numbers must come forward against apartheid entity killings unarmed protesters in their OWN LAND.

  24. @EliteCommInc.

    The south fired the first shots in anger and they got a response? That’s kind of like saying: “The homeowner fired the first shots at the heavily armed squatter in his house and got a response” which is blaming the homeowner for the aggression of the heavily armed squatter. And yes, just squatting in somebody else’s territory, armed and uninvited, is aggression.

  25. How’s that Democracy working out in South Africa? Or in any area where Demographics have changed? Not so good for some people.

    The Bible has some nice stories. One of my favorites is “The Tower of Babel”. There was a reason why God (nature) created nations. Let no man interfere with nature as there will be unintended consequences. A simpler rule would be “Don’t feed the animals”.

  26. polistra says:

    Agreed.

    But more specifically on the 2016 election, the anomaly was actually a LACK of meddling.

    Normally both parties stack the primaries and caucuses to guarantee that the predetermined heir to the throne gets the throne quickly and cheaply. In 2016 the D side stacked and meddled as usual, right out in the open on live TV. You could SEE the caucuses being fixed for Hillary.

    But for some unknown reason the fix failed on the R side. Jeb was the heir, and normally his “election” would have been instant after the New Hampshire primary. The other candidates would concede immediately and Jeb would win by default. Something strange happened this time. The fix didn’t work. Was this a result of the DNC pied piper tactic? DNC moles interfering with RNC fixers? We’ll never know.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  27. @Echoes of History

    Ooooh, Sweeet!

    Your comment is that rare diamond in a veritable dungheap.

  28. @Anon

    The constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court judges say it is.

    Even then it’s routinely kissed off whenever convenient. “Muh knorn-stutoo-shun” and $5.00 may get one a cup of over-roasted, undrinkable java somewhere.

  29. @jilles dykstra

    Never understood the difference between democrats and republicans, until a USA friend explained it ‘democrats, new money, republicans, old money’.

    Plenty of old money in the Dem party as well.

    In truth, the only difference is in the label.

    Deaf and blind yet she figured it out…

    “Are not the dominant parties managed by the ruling classes, that is, the propertied classes, solely for the profit and privilege of the few?

    They use us millions to help them into power. They tell us like so many children that our safety lies in voting for them. They toss us crumbs of concession to make us believe that they are working in our interest. “

    Helen Keller,OUT OF THE DARK, LETTER TO AN ENGLISH WOMAN- SUFFRAGIST* Copyright, 1907
    http://archive.org/stream/outdarkessaysle01kellgoog/outdarkessaysle01kellgoog_djvu.txt

    Lotsa Red millionaires among the old money too.

  30. @europeasant

    How’s that Democracy working out in South Africa?

    Or Iz-ra-el? Or the US of A?

  31. @manorchurch

    manorchurch says:Next New Comment
    May 19, 2018 at 1:10 pm GMT
    @Ochlocracy
    Awwww …. did oo find a kool new word that tickled your little vibrant rear end?

    It’s kool, but it ain’t new.

    From the link…

    Polybius (second century BCE) appears to have coined the term in his Histories (6.4.6).[1]

    There are numerous mentions of the word “ochlos” in the Talmud (where “ochlos” refers to anything from “mob”, “populace”, to “armed guard”), as well as in Rashi, a Jewish commentary on the Bible. The word is recorded in English since 1584, derived from the French ochlocratie (1568), which stems from the original Greek okhlokratia, from okhlos (“mob”) and kratos (meaning “rule, power, strength”).

    Here’s one that is both Kool and new. Well, actually not all that new because I coined it decades ago.:

    Onocracy. That’s closer to what we’ve been suffering under for more than a century.

    Now, about them vibrashunz…

    • Replies: @manorchurch
  32. @europeasant

    A simpler rule would be “Don’t feed the animals”.

    Even simpler, “Don’t create Homo sappyens.” (And if ya send a flood, again, don’t screw it up this time. Sheesh!)

  33. @polistra

    The fix didn’t work. Was this a result of the DNC pied piper tactic? DNC moles interfering with RNC fixers? We’ll never know.

    It was us deplorables. The corporate media was supposed to marginalize Trump. They did their considerable best to smear him. We said fuck that and voted for him anyway. “They” hate us for it.

  34. @jacques sheete

    I am acquainted with the term. It sees occasional use on occasional forums, occasionally. The USA is not an ochlocracy; the USA is a plutocracy.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @jacques sheete
  35. Silly question. For someone to “meddle” with something, that something must exist. “Meddling” with the American democracy sounds like meddling with honesty of a politician, an oxymoron.

  36. Respect says:
    @manorchurch

    to Jacques Sheete ,

    would you consider that the US and the EU , the West in genera l, is an Ochlocrary run by so many tribes that it is impossible to govern : the rich , the politicians , the press-tv-propaganda , the feminists , the gays , the narcos and drug addicts , the banks , the poor (welfare recipients), the military , racial minorities , the old , the ill , excentric religious leaders , the educational establishment , the medical establisment , the so called scientists etc….. so that all of them speak vociferously at the same time trying to get more money at the expense of general welfare
    and producing a horrible cacophony which indicates that we live in an Ochlocracy ?????

  37. Them Guys says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    While it seems many people do not know of it, the 50-states already are under Regional govnt system.

    There are 10-regions, with an avg of 4-6 states per federal region. Ever since it first was enacted in the 1960′s if I recall correctly. And each fed region has an Regional controller/governor. And each of the 10 total regional head honchos are appointed by Only a sitting usaPrez, and appointed for 15 year terms.

    And No Body nor no act of congress nor act by a state etc can dislodge that appointee…Only method to remove from position or replace them is for another sitting usa prez to fire or dismiss one.

    And each of the several states elected Governors, Must answer to the many various conditions etc. that arise regards various issues, must answer to and obey final decisions made by their respective prez appointed regional “Governor”.

    An example would be, fed issued state grant taxpayer cash. It is decided How that will get spent by the regional governor and all of the states within that region Must agree period.

    I think it was prez Nixon(?) that first presided over this system of regional governance.

    Either way, be it Nixon or another prez when first enacted…It has Been in effect ever since. And yet how many usa folks even aware of this?

    How many articles have folks ever read about this important issues?…Barely if any eh.

    You can search info on usa regional government probably and find further details of it.

    I recall being made aware of this from several details articles at, newswithviews website.

    I no longer visit that site due to it gradually was hijacked by an almost entirely staffed writer base of a combo of Apostate jewdeo Christian zio pastors, and rabbis and jewish neocon writers.

    About the only honest writer of articles there and who quickly was told his articles are “No longer welcome” was pastor Chuck Baldwin….His “Offence”?….Well, he had the balls and nerve to actually begin to write articles highlighting in detail the issues and agendas of jewish/Zionist/Israel state control of usa congress and whitehouse and state dept policy etc.

    In other words Baldwin wrote abject documented facts on these typically “Hushed-Up/Censored” issues and that website dismissed he and his articles asap fast!

    I saw it coming before that when little by little more and more articles were done by so many jews and rabbis, as well as, well known neocon excuse maker writers….Actually that website is the very first place I ever read an article by the woman writer of This main article we are replying to.

    But anyways, Americas 50 states have been totally ruled and controlled Via 10-appointed Regional Governors as outlined here, and elected state official gov’s Answer to them and those 10 regional gov’s answer to Only the current sitting usa prez.

    And the fact that not many folks know of it, and less yet is ever discussed by Any MSM outlets should confirm this is not good for the citizens nor the 50 states and gives yet more dictatorial powers to the usa prez and his AIPAC advisors and Bosses.

  38. @Respect

    You are muddling the issue by omitting the hierarchical relationships among the groups you listed. In fact, the rich (super-rich, to be more specific, maybe the top 0.01%) wholly own the politicians, the MSM, banks, and the military, and both political parties in the US (The Republicrats). They employ various “useful idiots” (feminists, gays, lesbians, racial minorities, “cultural left”, junkies, etc.) as front groups, sometimes as storm troopers (like BLM or Antifa), pretending to “care” about them simply to distract the majority from real problems and keep it under their thumb. They use eccentric religious leaders, as well as various terrorist groups that they create, train, and arm, like Al Qaida, ISIS, etc., to do their dirtiest work, and as scarecrows to keep the public afraid and obedient (the war on terror ruse). The medical establishment, focused on getting as much as they can, deserved or not, are perfect soulmates of the super-rich. The scientists come in two categories: the subservient ones pushing “approved” “science” to justify what the puppet-masters want, and the rebellious ones, that believe that the job of science is to uncover the truth. They do their best to defund and ultimately destroy the latter. Ostensible cacophony is perfectly scripted and directed by the ones who want us to believe that other groups have a voice. Thus, there is no ochlocracy, only plutocracy (you can call it kleptocracy, considering how the most unscrupulous people get super-rich).

    • Replies: @Respect
  39. Tom Welsh says:

    ‘Indeed, why would anyone, bar Nancy Pelosi and her party, object to “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not commit adultery, steal or covet?”’

    George Carlin provided the canonical explanation many years ago.

    ‘The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment’.

  40. @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    The Supreme Court just assumed the mantle of deciding what is Constitutional. You’d need a constitutional amendment, but it’s not hard to imagine a constitutional court, over the Supreme Court, whose judges, one apppointed by each state’s governor for 4 years, assess whether the Federal Government has overstepped the bounds that the Constitution establishes for it.

    Right now it’s a game of “Mother May I”that the FedGov plays with itself, with no outside control on it. No, literal, governor. Unsurprisingly, like any living organism, the FedGov has been in a positive feedback loop acquiring power and wealth with no check. Better to,have a governmental check than a natural one, since that will be much uglier.

  41. The constitution was sold out from almost the beginning of the republic Llana. You’d have made a good Confederate, they screwed it up as well as anyone, with stupendously-stupidly hanging on to slavery and thereby providing the North moral cover to hand victory to the Federalists, that’s why your 10th Amendment bit the dust. Insofar as the 14th Amendment, it was intended to protect a targeted class, that is Blacks, from a privileged class, that is Whites, and a century of Jim Crow simply points to the racism [hypocrisy] of the North for the fact the 14th Amendment was not enforced as it should have been, post victory. Here’s the better read on the matter:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/04/30/beware-the-perception/

    Insofar as those ‘ten commandments’ polluting our public spaces, when are the other religions going to be allowed equal space? (generally, they aren’t.)

    Here’s Louis Black’s take on your stone tablets gracing our courthouses, I like the “ten hairs from being baboons” quote :)

    Meanwhile Thomas Paine couldn’t get his views aired in the same public space today…

    “The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence? There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them. But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes. It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him.”

    • Replies: @Art
    , @jacques sheete
  42. Art says:

    There is a concerted conspired effort by the Jews to take over the interpretation of the US Constitution.

    Jewish “experts” are popping up everywhere telling us how to think about and interpret our fundamental laws. Of course, their targets are free speech and guns.

    Here are just three. Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center, Mark Liven on Fox, this article’s author. There are many many more – look for them – they mean America harm.

    They all rant and rave about our Constitution – they say it is the greatest thing ever – they don’t tell you, they want too mold it in their image – they are two faced. Every side of every Constitutional argument will be headed by a Jew. Freedom will die. When a Jew acts as a Jew – he perverts everything that he touches.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Maintain Hope — Seek Idealism — Art

  43. Whodunit? Who “Meddled” with Our American Democracy?

    The same folks that meddle in world affairs, CIA/Mossad/MIC, the troublemakers of the Wall St bankers and International Corporations. Same tactics they use to destabilize foreign countries, they use here in America too, its becoming pretty clear lately.
    The mass shootings, “terrorist” attacks, etc.. are what we call the death squads when they’re in other countries. They’re mercenaries, just like ISIS, paid for with your tax dollars. They’re being used more and more here at home now. They run the drug cartels too. Its pretty easy to see.
    CIA/Mossad, The MIC, Bankers, Intl Corporations.These entities are the enemy of all civilized humanity. Eisenhower, JFK and many other warned us. Until these criminals are dealt with, things will just continue to get worse, America won’t look much different than Iraq, Libya, Syria soon if it isn’t stopped. All the signs are there.

  44. Them Guys says:
    @Echoes of History

    Those mainly jewish fed court judges, had zero problems in forcing a total removal of the many Christmass manger scene displays erected by a vast majority of usa citizens to honor and celebrate Christmass holidays eh…..Yet….As soon as every Christian manger scene display was forced to be done away with based upon the leftist form of “Wall of separation” issues…..

    Them jews and chabads et al had zero problems convincing the same fed jewish justices that somehow for jews to erect an 95′ Tall Minorah aka the Devils Pitchfork, display at the Whitehouse and in a million other state/fed/ locations, was Not in the Same way a violation of that Wall of seperation eh.

    That sure reeks of the same vile sulphuric stench as the other jewish issue of “All Goyim nations that are mainly euro White majorities….Must allow and do and worship at the alter of multicultic diversity in each such nations…..BUT!…Us jews and ONLY us jews has a right to insist upon a jewish Only state of israel, and furthermore, a jewish state where Only White appearing jews can be allowed to reside within and gain unique citizenship of”

    And 60+ Million jewdeo-christian zio whacks said amen! To those double standards by jewry.

    Ironic how those same southern states of the confederacy in civil war era, then became the main primary same state locations of around 99% of those who own/trust/believe in/and obey stictly the proven to be falsehood interpretations galore, cyrus scofield bible. Which is and has been since it first entered usa shores for sale in aprox 1904, used as The #1 Main source of convincing those 60+ million of apostate jewdeo zio christians to be so pro jew and pro israel as seen today, and as seen on TV! Oh and where they also invented their false pre-trib rapture doctrines from too. Darby first promoted it in early to mid 1800′s, then Via that cyrus scoffield bible version, todays thumpers have gone wild with falsehoods galore of pre trib rapture claims/beliefs.

    In some ways all of current major zio run usa problems, while yes can be blamed on various banksters, bribed by aipac jews polititions, neocons, libs, etc etc and msm shabozz goy traitors.

    None share in more such proper blame than americas apostate pastors and their hoards of followers aka that 60+ million mostly White thumpers eh.

    And if ever we are to see a full blown restoration of america as it was and still should be, besides the convictions and hangings of all those various players mentioned, within politics and msm etc…Unless those fraudulent pastors are also included as abject traitors to america and its peoples….Then no such restoration can be had. In fact if I were the “great decider guy” I’d probobly round up those apostate pastors First for public Trials and traitor hangings!

    And it Is that whacko bunch of falsehood believers that msm jew run tv news shows always refer to on every possible issue of christianity eh….Which is done on purpous in order to cast doubt upon and make actual true christians look bad.

    PS: The actual proper reading of the comandmant is “Thou Shalt Not do MURDER”! Not thou shall not kill….Killing is okay and good in certain circumstances…Such as to kill an animal for meat food…And to kill in a Just war scenario…which a near perfect description of what constitutes just war doctrine was long ago written by St. Augustine I believe it was….Murder is what was wrong and prohibited.

    Gee…I wonder if it was jews that first switched word of murder into not kill, while the best and longest ongoing examples of violations of the comand to not do murder has been ignored by the same jewry tribe membership eh?

    • Agree: anarchyst
  45. Art says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Thanks – here is more Thomas Paine.

    What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated”

  46. @Rich

    States that violated the citizenship rights as to elections, right to education, employment entrepreneurship, etc based solely n skin color were in violation of the 14th amendment.

    Note: I am going to make a distinction rarely made in these discussions. The issue was not really segregation — the issue was equal service and equal treatment, If the states wanted to keep blacks and white separate, I don’t think blacks would have cared much — but for on e issue — the lack of equal standing under the law.

    When whites used color as a means of defining better, they essentially set themselves u for a violation —

    The standard was separate but equal. They failed the equal test and as such they offered no remedy, so the courts remedied. The issue swirls around segregation in discussion — but the segregation was only at fault because it was disparate.

    • Replies: @Rich
  47. W=hen the states ratified the constitution they essentially bonded themselves t the union. That forst was legal and not in any manner a violation of a states rights.

    If the states wanted to break an act of war/violence was a our choice. They fired on a legal federal institution and the feds responded. What makes that choice even more indefensible is that res. linoln had no intention of introducing any legislation to free slaves.

    It was a careless, needless and presumptive act —-

  48. Respect says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Anon from TN

    I wish you are right . What I am affraid is that the kleptocratic regime is a primary cancer that has spread too many methastasis into the social body . I am affraid that these methastasis have their own live , their own malignant parasitical growth , and that now even if you could cure the primary cancer the many and malignant methastasis ( ochlocracy ) could by themselves kill the social body .

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  49. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    For close to 100 years, segregation was allowed. It was allowed by the very men who wrote the Amendment, but in 1954 the wording that in 1870 allowed segregation, no longer applied? Do you think the schools in the South were better in 1896 when segregation was perfectly acceptable, were more “equal”? The Amendment wasn’t meant to force Whites to send their kids to school with blacks, or allow blacks to move into White neighborhoods or to force affirmative action on the White populace. In fact, in the decision Warren wrote “Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal deprive children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.” They didn’t care if the facilities and quality of education were equal, that didn’t factor into the decision. They made their decision based on their own ideology, not on the basis of law. There is absolutely nothing in the 14th Amendment that says blacks and Whites must be forced to live and go to school together. Nothing.

  50. @manorchurch

    The USA is not an ochlocracy; the USA is a plutocracy.

    An oligokakoplutocracy to be more precise.

    • Replies: @manorchurch
  51. KenH says:

    “Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”

    A good point but I’m not sure if I agree with this entirely. If the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment supersedes the 10th amendment rights of the states and municipalities then why did the federal judiciary largely wait more than 80 years to begin waging war on longstanding elements of American law and culture starting with Brown vs. Board of Ed? And why do these activist rulings only work against white racial interests? This isn’t coincidence.

    Civil rights legislation and affirmative action have created inequalities and unequal protection under the law favoring blacks and other minorities yet somehow these laws don’t get struck down under the 14th amendment. One of the original intents of the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed black slaves and their offspring but now it’s been twisted to confer blanket citizenship for every third worlder who can sneak in to the U.S. and drop an anchor baby or two. Similarly, it’s been abused to confer marriage rights to homosexuals.

    The point is is that I don’t think you can just point to the 14th amendment as the source of our woes although it’s definitely a major component. It’s not so much the plain language of that amendment as it is how it’s being (mis)interpreted and applied by jurists who are more political activists and ideologues than honest judges and originalists. It has been weaponized to further the (((cult Marxist))) agenda and allows the conspirators and traitors to sidestep the constitutional amendment process.

    The 14th amendment was kind of a shotgun wedding as I recall with Southern Senators being forcibly removed from office and fewer than the required 38 states ratifying it, so a case can be made that is illegitimate.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Corvinus
  52. @Respect

    would you consider that the US and the EU , the West in genera l, is an Ochlocrary run by so many tribes that it is impossible to govern

    Nope. Not at all. See my reply to #34. (It has not yet posted as I type.)

  53. @Ronald Thomas West

    T Paine was one helluva guy, but for the life of me I’ll never understand why he was a constitutionalist.
    I would have expected him to know better. I bet he’s in Heaven just shaking his head.

  54. @Them Guys

    That stuff gripes me as well. Our town is completely devoid of Christian symbols in public places during Christmastide, but the menorah is everywhere.

    That’s some sick s_ _ _.

  55. Anon[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @Them Guys

    Them jews and chabads et al had zero problems convincing the same fed jewish justices that somehow for jews to erect an 95′ Tall Minorah aka the Devils Pitchfork, display at the Whitehouse

    There is a Christmas tree and Easter egg celebration at the white house.

    All Goyim nations that are mainly euro White majorities….Must allow and do and worship at the alter of multicultic diversity in each such nations…..BUT!…Us jews and ONLY us jews has a right to insist upon a jewish Only state of israel,

    1 Jewish state , 2 Christian states and 57 Islamic states.

  56. @Rich

    As I noted in my comments, no one talks about what brought this issue to the fore – it was the inequity and the general practice by whites to bar access to and participation as citizens. I don’t defend the the side issues.

    White the justice makes that observation — the evidence rested on equity and when whites based equity on skin color — linked to better — making skin color and skin color alone a factor — they lose the debate because nothing about skin color is superior and to enact laws on that falsehood violated the 14th.

    This is not kike marriage, this not like sex/gender part of that race to link IQ and moral superiority to skin color genetic coding is to justify previous practices and support said practices in the future. But the constitutional standard for equal treatment is not anything except citizenship. So unless whites are prepared to spend the needed dollars to ensure every government service and facility is equal in every way to blacks — you are trying to untangle the polity from a peculiar angle.

    Busing was not intended to integrate for the sake of integration. It was evident that the states and the federal system had segregated on the basis of ensuring better services to whites — inequity on its face. Once in school and note these are public schools tax funded — no one is forcing whites and backs to mingle. The class is public class, school kids sit as they sit or as arranged by the instructor citizens are entitled to access to school regardless of color.

    It is unfortunate you referenced this,

    “Civil rights legislation and affirmative action have created inequalities and unequal protection under the law favoring blacks and other minorities yet somehow these laws don’t get struck down under the 14th amendment.”

    The law favored whites for more than 200 years and still does. AA was an attempt to redress that imbalance. Furthermore, instead of benefitting blacks AA has actually gone to whites by more than 70%..

    • Replies: @Rich
  57. @Respect

    I am sure I am right, but you have a point. If and when the owners (main cancer) are gone, formerly wholly owned scum (metastases in you terminology) remain. They exist on their own, and remain just as shameless and unscrupulous as they were while serving owners. They are poisonous for the social fabric, although less so than the super-rich.

  58. @jacques sheete

    Yeah, I’ll go along with that. Or coin something like “kakifuckocracy”. ;-)

  59. “We believe that it does.”

    Note the reference to intangibles — and answer the question as to why the two were segregated. And therein lies your answer.

  60. @Rich

    In a rare very rare decision –

    all nine judges found fault to equity. This was not a close call in which someone’s polity tilted the decision.

  61. @TomSchmidt

    In my most optimistic imagination the only thing I can think of that would make it a reality would be for a party to embrace it as its own and only platform for a full electoral cycle – sacrificing any and all other matters of policy. Short of that it admittedly strains my imagination to know what could bring it about.
    Trouble is: contemplating any possible alternative, all of which appear to be in this or that variety of hell.

  62. I’ve been saying it for a while. We need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  63. @EliteCommInc.

    They were not bound until Dishonest Abe made slaves of all of us.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  64. @Fidelios Automata

    South Carolina ratified the Constitution in 1788

    President Lincoln was born in 1809.

    Fort Sumter was built just 1812 –

  65. good grief my proofing

    correction: This is not Like marriage, this not like sex/gender part of that race to link IQ and moral superiority to skin color genetic coding is to justify previous practices and support said practices in the future.

    ____________

  66. It’s too bad that you did not separate this

    ” Civil rights legislation and affirmative action have created inequalities and unequal protection under the law favoring blacks and other minorities yet somehow these laws don’t get struck down under the 14th amendment. One of the original intents of the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed black slaves and their offspring… ”

    from the following

    “but now it’s been twisted to confer blanket citizenship for every third worlder who can sneak in to the U.S. and drop an anchor baby or two. Similarly, it’s been abused to confer marriage rights to homosexuals.One of the original intents of the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed black slaves and their offspring but now it’s been twisted to confer blanket citizenship for every third worlder who can sneak in to the U.S. and drop an anchor baby or two. Similarly, it’s been abused to confer marriage rights to homosexuals.”

    because they have nothing to do with the 14th amendment And those peculiar policies to a one were advocated by white presidents and policymakers in leadership far more than any black dared consider —

    AA is redress for the massive denial of what comes with citizenship, not just in the south, but across the nation from NYC to Los Angeles . It’s impact has been minor as most AA jobs have been delivered to whites Furthermore the policy as originally intended and applied is not what went into force or is in force today. Whites, including hispanics and asians are the recipients of more 70% of AA cut outs.

  67. Tbbh says:
    @Them Guys

    “…if ever we are to see a full blown restoration of america as it was …”

    Which “restored America”?

    1660?
    1789?
    1820?
    1885?
    1910?
    1932?
    1980?
    1989?
    1994?
    1999?
    2000?
    2001?
    2007?
    2014?
    2016?
    2018?

    You need to better, and more accurately, define the goals you shant achieve…but you did make me giggle. You are an example of the failings of our school system. Sucks for you.

    Still curious as to what is your “baseline year for merca”. I would wager you have never even thought about it. Kinda ruins your whole “speech”.

  68. @Them Guys

    Actual true christians? Reminds me of those other true believers who bellyache that vulgar communism makes actual true communists look bad, while calling for the execution of insufficiently-communist communists.

    And if you’re so much against Jewish influence, why do you worship a King of Israel (John 1:49) in a Jews First (Romans 1:16) cult?

    The Pope has it right.

    Pope Francis told an interviewer that “inside every Christian is a Jew.”

    Pope Francis: ‘Inside every Christian is a Jew’
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-francis-inside-every-christian-is-a-jew/2014/06/13/775750fc-f324-11e3-8d66-029598e98add_story.html

    Christianity is by definition “jewdeo.” Face up to it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @HogHappenin
  69. Inside every christian is the spirit of Christ —-

    And according to scripture in christ there is neither jew, not gentile, greek or roman …

    And while I am obligated to abide by laws that don’t conflict with faith, such as immigration laws –
    it’s the spirit of christ that reigns in the believer, even when he or she doesn’t obey it.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  70. why would anyone object to “thou shall covet?”

    Because it’s thought policing?

  71. Anon[452] • Disclaimer says:
    @Echoes of History

    Most of these guys aren’t Christian. Mostly they are stormfag types that think they are descended from an ultra pure , super white Nordic stock directly descended from Odin , Loki and Thor .

    Their biggest dream is that Muslims will destroy Teh Jooz , a tacit admission that they themselves( stormfags) are not up to the task. They freely admit that getting up from the land of make believe (the internet) ,is something that they are not capable of .

  72. @EliteCommInc.

    Christ was a Jew, a Rabbi. So you’re saying a Jew is inside of you.

    Why would you want a Jew inside you? That’s as freakish of a desire as transgenderism.

    Of course, Christians were the original trannies.

    “Be ye tranny-formed!” -Romans 12:2

    What’s the difference between renewing your mind and renewing your genitals? Why can’t you be satisfied with what Gott (God, Godin, Gotin, Wotan, Woden) already made you?

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  73. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “The law that favored White people for 200 years and still does”. Nonsense. Blacks are given jobs solely based on the color of their skin. Affirmative action in school admissions, hiring and promotions is already completely out of hand. The US put an inept, first term Senator into the office of President because of the color of his skin. If a White person has a fight with a black, he’s automatically put under suspicion of committing a hate crime. In Queens NY a White kid received an additional 10 years in prison for a fight he had with a black who was robbing cars in his neighborhood for allegedly calling the thief a bad word. Police are routinely suspended and face criminal charges if forced to use lethal force on black criminals. Black criminality is the reason Whites used to pass laws to separate themselves from blacks. Just look at the stats. Nowhere on this planet has a people done more for a minority than Americans have done for blacks, welfare, voting rights, prison reform, affirmative action and you claim the law “still” favors Whites?

    That book they made you read in the 8th grade “To Kill a Mockingbird”, was fiction. Look at the actual crime statistics and understand why the law “favors” Whites. It’s because Whites, and Asians for that matter, obey the law.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @anarchyst
  74. Raj says:
    @anon

    But prior to gaymarriage the legal definition of marriage was such that only hetero pairs could be married. The question is then why we can or should delete this previously definitive rule (man-woman) but not the other ones. And, really, the hetero-ness of marriage is far more central historically and culturally than the number of spouses or the ban on incest. No one ever doubted that polygamous Mormon or Muslim marriages or incestuous Egyptian marriages were indeed -marriages_… By contrast the idea of two husbands married to each other would have seemed incoherent. There is no record of any society with “marriages” of that kind, far as I know. Certainly it is about the most alien absurd concept of marriage from a western perspective.

    • Replies: @anon
  75. annamaria says:
    @KenH

    There is more on the “unequal protection under the law.”
    Enters certain State Representative Alan Clemmons of South Carolina: “Criticize the Israeli Government, Or Criticize Individuals Who Put Israel First Ahead of the U.S., You’re Breaking The Law. Goes Into Effect July 1″ http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/05/criticize-the-israeli-government-or-criticize-individuals-who-put-israel-first-ahead-of-the-us-youre.html
    “… the particulars that were injected in South Carolina’s budget bill, thanks to Rep. Clemmons:
    • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
    • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
    • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
    • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
    • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
    • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
    • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
    multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
    • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

    How cannot such a piece of legislation not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of his states’ citizens? To dare to criticize the Nazi policies of the State of Israel is considered illegal by his bill. Doesn’t such infringe on the 1st Amendment of both the U.S. and South Carolina?
    … It appears that Representative Clemmons was rewarded like a little puppy getting a rawhide treat, Clemmons was one of those invited to the dedication of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem party last week. ”
    —The legislating idiot Clemmons made a move that rivals the pro-Israel indecency of Nikki Haley, another idiot from South Carolina.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  76. Corvinus says:

    “Yet courts in the nation’s centralized court system, the Supreme Court included, are in the business of harmonizing law across the nation, rather than allowing communities to live under laws they author, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.”

    Except, of course, when state laws supersede the laws of Congress, or when state laws violate the Constitution. Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled the third branch of government–the Supreme Court–to make rulings that indeed “harmonize law across the nation”. It would appear Mercer is dumbfounded by the Framers righteous decision.

  77. Corvinus says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    “I’ve been saying it for a while. We need to repeal the 14th Amendment.”

    Only a communist, or an elitist, or a Southron would make that statement.

    Are you one or all of the above?

  78. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    “If the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment supersedes the 10th amendment rights of the states and municipalities then why did the federal judiciary largely wait more than 80 years to begin waging war on longstanding elements of American law and culture starting with Brown vs. Board of Ed?”

    First, the 14th Amendment does not supersede the 10th Amendment, or vice versa.
    Second, the Supreme Court looks at the merits of each case when it comes to conflicting amendments. Go back to the Plessy case. The justices ruled “separate but equal”–the state and businesses could separate socially the races in public accommodations. Moreover, funding for schools had to be similar in nature. They made it well-known, however, that whites could not PROHIBIT blacks from exercising their liberties, nor make it VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for blacks to become eligible to vote or hold elective office or own a firearm. Then look at the Brown case. The justices ruled that southern states CLEARLY did not adhere to the “separate but equal” doctrine when it came to education.

    “One of the original intents of the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed black slaves and their offspring but now it’s been twisted to confer blanket citizenship for every third worlder who can sneak in to the U.S. and drop an anchor baby or two.”

    That would be Fake News.

    “It’s not so much the plain language of that amendment as it is how it’s being (mis)interpreted and applied by jurists who are more political activists and ideologues than honest judges and originalists.”

    No, it has been interpreted appropriately and properly.

    “The 14th amendment was kind of a shotgun wedding as I recall with Southern Senators being forcibly removed from office and fewer than the required 38 states ratifying it, so a case can be made that is illegitimate.”

    No, you are dead-wrong in what you recall. As part of Reconstruction, each southern state had to hold a constitutional convention, or convene the legislature, to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The process was legitimate.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @KenH
  79. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raj

    Yes, but you are dealing with a different subject. The US Courts wouldn’t have been interested in anything but what was legally available as marriage to non sibling mature males and females and then deciding whether the same right to the status and other benefits conferred should be available to same sex partners. (If there is an American lawyer reading this he or she might like to put me right if I have misconceived the issues). Actually you are not irrelevant (as with ancient Egyptian incest) but I think wrong in relation to Mormon polygamy unless perhaps just in Utah. Interesting question. If now or once in the past polygamous marriages were recognised in Utah what effect would judicial activism and the 14th Amendment have had? Would it have extended polygamous rights to same sex partners – and why not some of each?

    • Replies: @Raj
  80. Well,

    I take it — that the discussion on the 14th amendment is done and you intend to change the subject.

    I won’t rehash the historical record for someone who refuses to acknowledge what is clearly codified in law and practice – historically.

    Your comprehension of what group is under suspicion via living in society ignores 200 plus years of history The first hate crime conviction was a black male — I am sure you can find the case But if we are going to play the hate crime game, then you lose Blacks just don’t have the numbers nor the historical record of engaging acts of discrimination based on skin color as motive as whites. This is not an arguments that can be won if one is contending gate crimes While I don’t support hate crime presses — if we garner the entire record – the dominant society loses and loses massively

    And by introducing the police compound the magnitude of the loss on Numbers. If you care to rake a look there have been numerous conversations on the criminality and color on this sight And the stats do not support that blacks hold some unique marker on criminal behavior and when statistically placed in context of of how, where and why criminal activity takes places — it paints a very egregious use of stats to paint a picture of of all 41 million or so blacks that is a false narrative — oddly enough, a narrative that reflects that held since slavery.

    If you are going to make an argument that .3% of the black population involved in violent activity represents 41 million, well, whatever my differences with black liberals — you will get no sale here. Next you will be telling me there’s a war on police.

    Your attempt to justify discrimination based on statistical analysis is rejected for several reasons:

    1. violates due process

    2. violates the individual responsibility for behavior and transfers it to group which is not supported by the data proferred

  81. @Echoes of History

    Wow,

    this is peculiar gymnastics

    Christ calls for a renewal of one’s mind, one’s spirit from unrighteousness to one of righteousness that has nothing to do with physically rerouting one;s biology from male to female, which in my view is a near impossible task as we know that here genetics is dearly static or exists in a steady state, regardless of the environmental impacts

    I am going to eschew any conversation that expects me to explicate the deliberate semantic abuse. My previous comments do not in way reflect so called gender confusion/dysphoria with what is spiritual transformation — that when pitted against each other such theories, indicates such activity is counter to Christ’s purposes, written even before these discussions in play existed

    What human beings can do as to the law and social polity often runs counter to scripture — your press is an example of just such juxtaposition.

    And I have no idea why you even attempt it.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  82. @Rich

    this is a common instance your own references defeat your contention. Here’s your comment,

    “Nowhere on this planet has a people done more for a minority than Americans have done for blacks, welfare, voting rights, prison reform, affirmative action and you claim the law “still” favors Whites?”

    A look at the history of welfare demonstrates that blacks did not really get welfare until the 1960′s. The policy regarding welfare even under the new deal policies of democrats were that they were reserved for whites, even in NYC.. Given the failures all initiated by whites, it’s pretty clear that blacks were denied help given to whites That is usually referred to as unequal treatment under the law. And when blacks did begin to get welfare — it did not go expressly to blacks, but the population as a whole, primarily whites —

    I am not sure why you introduce voting rights — it by definition means that the country denied voting rights to a segment of the population who were citizens — the very purpose of the 14th amend. In other words despite the law, whites discriminated against blacks and did not correct it until 100 years later — I think there are some serious consequences for that discrimination on the population denied —

    AA — I have dealt with this previously as hijacked by whites: homosexual practitioners and white women, and other assorted groups cataloged as white — for good reason

    I think it’s a forgone conclusion that prison reform was not a black targeted issue Prison reform has been an issue in the US since there were prisons and when people were placed in stocks. But the data is strongly in favor that blacks were targeted for discrimination in prisons — well criminal justice as a whole. Regardless of what you want the stats to say, citizenship is the standard for treatment

    It might be a good idea if we just treat citizens as citizens and stop attempting fix the mistakes of the past by importing a bunch of people whose sole goal is to make a dollar at our expense.

    • Replies: @Rich
  83. I would support a complaint that merely being born in the US does not qualify one for citizenship That lower court ruling comes out of left field and nothing in the 15th amendment supports it One has to have been born by parents who were already citizens

    Birth alone alone is not a qualifier, The references to legal US jurisdiction matters a great deal.

  84. Raj says:
    @anon

    You are begging the question. Traditionally and legally as well, in all western countries, marriage was “available” only to non-sibling adults, as you say. It was also available only to heterosexuals. Being non-siblings and adults were requirements but _of course_ it was also a requirement that the pair were not same-sex. (Even the legally significant “I now pronounce you man and wife” underlines the fact.)

    The reasonable point raised earlier could be framed as follows: Why did the court recently decide to ask (1) whether same-sex pairs should be granted the same marriage rights as other pairs of non-sibling adults, but not (2) whether sibling pairs of adults should be granted the same rights as non-sibling pairs, or (3) whether non-sibling non-same-sex groups of more than 2 should be granted the same rights as non-sibling non-same-sex goups of only 2?

    There is no real or principled answer. There is just the fact that, for now, the powers that be seem to have decided they want homo-marriage but not incest-marriage or poly-marriage. It’s about advertising and culture war, certainly not some technical or philosophical principle based on the law or constitution…

    Maybe I don’t understand your question or suggestion. Are you asking whether US laws defined marriage as a man-woman union prior to the recent gaymarriage SCOTUS decisions? The answer is yes, of course. That’s not some arcane legal question you need to check with a lawyer. Are you asking whether such laws _also_ define it as monogamous and non-incestuous? Yes, they did and still do. So the question here is why we should retain those other kinds of limits on “equal” marriage rights but not the first (and far more obvious, natural, essential) kind of limit.

    • Replies: @anon
  85. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    It’s interesting that someone could be so wrong about so many things in one comment. It’s truly amazing.
    1. In NYC, which admittedly had a very low population of blacks during FDR’s term, there were never any restrictions on them receiving welfare.
    2. No country on earth has set up a system that guarantees the voting rights of minorities like the system set up in the US. This shows that blacks, for over 50 years have been not only free to vote, but have been protected by the vast US law enforcement system.
    3. You’re wrong about affirmative action, too. Blacks receive jobs, school admissions and promotions through AA at a much higher rate than the groups you mentioned. There would be virtually no blacks at any Ivy league schools if we went by their actual test scores.
    4. Perhaps you should read some current events. The Congressional Black Caucus, as well as Black mayors and city council members have made prison reform one of their top issues, since so many of their people spend time in prison, due to the high number of felonies they commit.
    5. I agree that we should treat all citizens as citizens and stop giving preferential treatment to any group, including blacks.

  86. anarchyst says:
    @Corvinus

    Forcing the “states in rebellion” to accept and ratify amendments to the Constitution in order for “union troops” to cease military control and as a condition of “re-entry” into the federal system most certainly is “force” at the point of a gun, and in normal “contract law” and constitutionality is illegal and unenforceable.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  87. anarchyst says:
    @Rich

    I have come to the conclusion that enacting of the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes. The more “rights” blacks demand, the more they complain and make demands not available to whites. When whites become a “minority” in our own country, do you think the “civil-rights” acts will benefit us? I think not…

    When whites become a minority, this country is finished. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other black-run “basket cases”. This is our future…

    That being said…

    The term “racism” was invented by communists, and is used to destroy cultures and defuse (and render impotent) those with differing points-of-view on “racial” issues.

    True “racism” is desirable as it merely cements cultural and social bonds that are necessary for a society to function and flourish.

    True “racism” merely denotes commonality of purpose and advancement within each respective racial group.

    Blacks have the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the $PLC, ACLU and ADL. These are all “racist” organizations that serve to promote the interests (and political power) of their respective races.

    It is only whites who are castigated and threatened for attempting to show any signs of racial solidarity.

    Let’s look at what us “evil, privileged” whites have done for Western society and the world:

    1. “Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races) and do not apply to whites–only “people of color” are covered by these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” protections.

    2. “Affirmative action” policies (that push better qualified whites out of positions and jobs that they would ordinarily qualify for) in favor of lesser-qualified minorities. In fact, “affirmative action” policies actually damage those minorities who are quite capable of “making it on their own” because they get “lumped in” with the groups that cannot make it on their own without “help”,

    3. “Contract set-asides” (that are specifically targeted for minorities (that white people are prohibited from bidding on) and immigration policies (that specifically exclude whites, most of who have skills that would benefit the USA) in favor of those from the third-world (with no marketable skills).

    4. Scholarships that specify particular ethnic groups are looked upon favorably by most people, save one–scholarships that are intended for whites only are looked upon as being “racist”, and therefore impermissible and improper in today’s racially-charged climate of “political correctness”.

    NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites).

    Whites possess an externalized altruism that no other races possesses. This externalized altruism that “looks out for the other guy” will be the demise of the white race. This altruism needs to be internalized and focused inward, just as other races have done. There is NO SHAME in looking out for one’s own kind.

    I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965″. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…

    Let’s not forget that “freedom of association” (but only affecting the white majority) was eviscerated by the enacting of these clearly unconstitutional acts.

    As whites comprise only 6% of the world population, it is us whites who should be the most protected and cherished of minorities…

    “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide.

  88. @Rich

    A. Go review the history of NYC — then get back to me. And stunningly, go listen to Mayor Laguardia’s speech to the black churches.

    B. Uhh not in question, but you are bypassing the point — voting rights enacted 1964 — so for 100 years minus 1 — those rights were abridged. That has consequences. And undermines your case. Correcting a wrong, doesn’t dismiss that a wrong was done and has consequences. Well, I would contend that the current realignment of the former colonial occupied states have done far more — even with its. I think even the law enforcement community would shy away from your comment about police behavior – good grief. They minimize it — but dismissing it out of hand as you have – that’s pretty barren fair.

    C. Go do the math and look at the figures. Even Fox news admits this obvious data set. Affirmative action as I noted previously absolutely did not require nor does it require a lowering of test scores. The students in colleges graduate at about the same rate as whites. And just to head you off at the pass, there are more students in college and HS that graduate than there are blacks in prison.

    D. I did not say that prison reform did not include issues as to blacks. I said prison reform is not uniquely to blacks – I think the historical record makes that abundantly clear.

    E. Well, I am not going to attend issues of preferential treatment. But redress is a constitutional issue. Civil suits. So if there is measurable harm due to practices by entities involving violations of the constitution — redress is not an uncommon manner of dealing with correction. As I stated, i hesitate to have a discussion with someone who thinks according to your opening statement in the previous comments. Now normally I would cite sources. But as I have done that numerous times here and on TAC, I am going to forgo repeating that work for the time being.

    Look your logic is a conundrum for you and you’ll have to unravel it. Especially once you grant out that the implication that obviously discrimination went unredressed for 100 years minus 1. Making a claim that it has gone unimpeded, ignores what happened in Florida in 2000 and the careless application of criminal background checks — the carelessness of the Carolina legislature in identifying black voters in applying voter ID legislation — as someone who supports voter ID — it was a foolish, tragic and disappointing move that indicates that nearly the entire legislature used color as a measure above citizenship — incomprehensible and as a conservative – frustrating.

    Now my view,

    1. the supreme court did exceed its mandate on busing – their ruling simply should have been every facility, every system, every service must be equal in all ways at all times —

    2. Since violating the rights of citizens is against the law, I am at a loss why there was a need for civil rights legislation save that states were absolutely intent on violating the rights of citizens despite the law and they needed to impugned with a reminder, I am not a fan of laws to reinforce laws — seems redundant to me.

    3. You simply cannot have such massive nation wide discriminatory practices and not have consequences. I care not a twiddle what blacks, whites, asians, mexicans or my supposed intellectual betters think — such practices have consequences — whine as you will about it. The issue is whether it needs to be addressed, redressed and how. If you need a more tangible view, dig into military history and the blacks who served and attempt to calculate the consequences.

    This is one issue in which I don’t truck with foolishness. One doesn’t need a BA degree to comprehend the history and consequence.

    You will have to explain the redress for having provided preferential treatment for whites. If I steal your car and give it to my grandson (I don’t have any kids). You will pursue redress despite the fact that my grandson did not steal the car, even if getting that car back means, my grandson has to drop out of school. He will not be able to make a claim that you are being given preferential treatment or that said redress is unfair — there’s a price to rebalance.

    Now I am not an advocate for any this or that. I take the issues as they come. And before we can discuss AA you have to know what it is, why and its application –

    you don’t. You don’t even know who the beneficiaries are.

    • Replies: @Rich
  89. @Rich

    Note: L’est there be any attempt to challenge my veracity, I did not say that blacks did not make gains under AA. I said they are not the largest groups to benefit. I stand by my position.

  90. KenH says:
    @Corvinus

    First, the 14th Amendment does not supersede the 10th Amendment, or vice versa.

    I never said that it did. The person writing to Ilana and who she quoted made that claim.

    Second, the Supreme Court looks at the merits of each case when it comes to conflicting amendments.

    Not necessarily. Chief Justice John Roberts effectively rewrote Obamacare legislation from the bench (a fine became a tax thus passing constitutional muster) while Anthony Kennedy virtue signaled and flipped to give the radical left a victory for Obama’s grossly unconstitional “affirmatively furthering fair housing” which strips municipalities of control over their own zoning if they accept HUD block grants. These are merely two of many examples.

    The justices ruled that southern states CLEARLY did not adhere to the “separate but equal” doctrine when it came to education.

    The goal was always integration and racial amalgamation, thus the ruling that schools must be integrated. The court easily could have simply ordered Southern states to provide more funds to black schools to make them “equal”. This was an ideological ruling and not judged on “the merits of the case” as you erroneously believe.

    That would be Fake News.

    That’s called real history. You should try it some time. I love how you hypocritical progs argue that the first and second amendments are very narrow and that the first doesn’t protect “hate speech” and the second doesn’t permit ownership of many types of firearms available today but the 14th amendment has no boundaries, original intent or context and just means what it says.

    No, it has been interpreted appropriately and properly.

    It’s being applied ideologically and continues to be weaponized by the left.

    No, you are dead-wrong in what you recall. As part of Reconstruction, each southern state had to hold a constitutional convention……

    Ah, and you’re the expert. But the fact is is that duly elected confederate representatives were denied their seats in Congress and barred from casting votes on the 14th amendment and replaced with scab representatives. That’s like Congress holding a vote on banning assault rifles while replacing all pro-second amendment legislators with members of handgun control, inc.

    There’s arguments on both sides of the issue but a strong case can be made that the 14th amendment was born in sin and ratified via system gaming, coercion and skullduggery.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  91. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    I’ve read through your two comments and, as usual, I am amazed at how people who are so very misinformed, can be so very sure of themselves. Similar to the way a communist, despite all the evidence of the horrors of communism, still pushes communism. Well, I suppose you’re not really hurting anyone, so I won’t bother with you anymore. Best of luck.

    By the way, blacks were able to, and did vote prior to the Civil Rights Act. No Americans alive today ever owned a slave, the overwhelming majority of Americans alive today aren’t even related to anyone who owned a slave, and more than half the states fought a war that freed the slaves. Nothing is owed to blacks, especially not over 150 years since slavery ended.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  92. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raj

    You are obviously no stranger to good reasoning but perhaps unfamiliar with the legal reasoning or judicial technique by which courts attempt to discipline themselves respectably. I stand to be corrected in my understanding of the situation in America brought about by the Bill of Rights Amendments (and the 14th I think). Other common law countries have suffered from activist judges but the US constitution as amended seems to make law making by judges frequent and almost compulsory (not that traditional technique hasn’t stretched to novelty; e.g. would you believe that radio and television weren’t mentioned in the 1901 Australian Constitution – do. air travel – but the central government decided that it had better make laws on the subject….. the Australian courts didn’t get in the way).

    If you are Indian I am sure I don’t need to spell out further how I think the judicial technique might get to where it has :-)

  93. @Rational

    As always, I stand to be corrected.. and hope corrections will increase everyone’s understanding.

    Democracy is the human right of self-determination

    The words gay marriage, gun rights, abortion rights, religious rights, immigrants, etc. are symbols; designed to foster arguments which provide vehicles to manipulate public opinion by propaganda. Propaganda weakens the political powers of the governed slaves. Argument and dissension divide the masses into opposed groups. (Like a see saw, if the two sides with nearly opposite intentions, are made nearly equal in power; a third party can manipulate the outcome of the struggle.

  94. @Rich

    Sure blacks did vote. But that did not stop states in the country for manufacturing ways to abridge those citizenship rights.

    Our discussion is not really about slavery. It’s about the rights abridged after the 14th amendment. An d on that score the record is overwhelmingly clear that blacks were targeted for discrimination — I would love to rewrite history to tell a different story. I would love to rewrite the history of Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Urbana, St.Louis, Detroit, Allentown, Philadelphia, Dallas Houston, Boston, Miami, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, and dozens and dozens more across the country, small towns like Hays, Killeen, Springfield, Charlestown, and a hundreds more.

    I would love to sat that white women are not as culpable as white men I would like to say, that our society did not leverage women against black men to enforce laws and deny them opportunities to excel I would like to say, they are no consequences for past offenses.

    History in every category of US life tells me I cannot. I would like the kumbaya wold you claim — but it did not exist and does not exist instead whites of every political brand prefer to import foreigners under the guise that blacks are simply unworthy or that other trick of rhetoric, it helps everyone, — — that my conscience will not accept.

    I would love to embrace the idea that the founders did not utterly blow the deal when they made color an issue and legalized slavery, whatever my stark differences with blacks on polity, I won’t pretend another reality because its inconvenient to face the hard truth or because I will be more acceptable.

    There’s a war on and blacks are the least of that problem

  95. @Echoes of History

    The Babylonian Talmud is the key to all of this, the “leaven of the Pharisees” that Jesus warned about. Jesus said to them: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth” (John 8:44). The ‘Christian’ Zionists completely disregard Jesus’ warnings about the Talmudists.

    Go peddle your forgery to those poor southern baptists and their false prophet, John “pig mouth” hagee and have their sons fight your wars in the middle east while back home your bankers forclose their homes and rape their daughters!!

    A “win-win” proposition indeed every way you look at it

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  96. Corvinus says:
    @anarchyst

    No, it was not force. It is properly called conditions for re-admittance into the Union as a consequence for what was deemed an illegal action.

    You seem to forget that there were tens of thousands of southern Unionists who supported southern interests, but not southern secession.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  97. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    “The court easily could have simply ordered Southern states to provide more funds to black schools to make them “equal”. This was an ideological ruling and not judged on “the merits of the case” as you erroneously believe.”

    Sixty years of southrons repeatedly violating the spirit of the Plessy case was enough for the Justices, considering that southern states did not even have graduate or doctoral programs. The ruling was based on the rule of law according to the merits of the case. You are completely in over your head here.

    “I love how you hypocritical progs argue that the first and second amendments are very narrow and that the first doesn’t protect “hate speech” and the second doesn’t permit ownership of many types of firearms available today but the 14th amendment has no boundaries, original intent or context and just means what it says.”

    Thanks for the strawman. I am not a prog nor did I make the argument about those specific amendments being “narrow”. In fact, I have significant issues with laws and consequences for “hate speech”. And the 2nd Amendment does not say “unfettered access”, just access. Restrictions are something the general populace has to decide on. I don’t take a side on this issue decidedly one way or the other way.

    “But the fact is is that duly elected confederate representatives were denied their seats in Congress…”

    Because southern states in 1865 and 1866 enacted a series of laws known as “black codes” which were designed to restrict freed blacks’ activity and ensure their availability as a labor force, a clear violation of Reconstruction policies being enacted by Congress.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @renfro
  98. but the reason the establishment was able to consolidate power in the fed govt is because of the STRUCTURE of the fed govt as laid out in the constitution…the structure is everything…all federal power flows from it…if you don’t understand this, you understand little…dr. woody holton’s book UNRULY AMERICANS gives a good explanation of this…

  99. anarchyst says:
    @Corvinus

    WRONG! Illegal? By whose definition? The Constitution would never had been ratified if a “no secession” clause would have been added. Readmission to the “union” WAS done by force. Union troops and the “carpetbaggers” were considered “foreigners (rightly so), and were used as a bludgeon in order to get the “states in rebellion” to submit to federalism. In order to return life to some semblance of normalcy, the southern states were FORCED (at the point of bayonets) to agree to “readmission”. The southern states WERE within their rights to secede.
    Read your history, not just the “commonly accepted” explanation.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Corvinus
  100. @EliteCommInc.

    The Jew Testament doesn’t call for just the renewing of the mind, but for a new body. The original Tranny-formation!

    And about gender confusion – Jesus advocated cutting off your balls (Matt. 22:30). And denounced straight normal sexual attraction. (Mark 9:47) Also carried on like a San Francisco flamer. (John 13:23-25)

    Any man snuggling a boy in his “bosom” today you’d judge harshly — but you’ll play semantic games to make excuses for the degenerate Jew you worship. Go on try, if you think your interpretation games work.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  101. @HogHappenin

    Speaking of forgery, that word quite well defines the Jew Testament that you’re peddling. See Bart Ehrman’s “Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” (HarperOne, 2012).

  102. @Echoes of History

    Laughing . . . belly deep with a painful squint at such an unfamiliar hoola hooping of scripture.

    Here are my second responses to your suggestion.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=NKJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9&version=NKJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13&version=NKJV

    Here is my third response to your suggestion: “Nuts”.

    Here is my personal response.

    Nothing in scripture condones the type gender operations taking place today. It is not advocated or suggested. The most clear references is the following:

    https://biblehub.com/romans/1-28.htm

    https://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm

    There is a passage in the NT in which it expressly says, there will come a time when men will desire to be as women and women will desire likewise. If But for some reason, not even the internet made it easier to find — it’s a fairly stark prediction.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13&version=NKJV

    I am sure you are being facetious — be careful. But the above passage is as you clearly know — merely describing a bunch of guys hanging out – and has nothing to do with physical relations with one another. I used to work at a class “C”(?) facility for boys and much to my astonishment, it was not uncommon to see them with their feet on one another or lying side by side or in some other arrangement — it had nothing to do with intimate desires.

    But with respect to your suggestion — it is an inaccurate reading, even by the most liberal of standards.

    There are rare cases in which people are born with anomalies — that scenario is entirely different that your propositions here. I suspect as recorded in various church renderings, it is dealt with discreetly and with the care of Christ. In discussions on this matter, that group of individuals do not portend to have any association with the same sex relational and transgender community.

    ___________________________________

    Note: Those contending that same relational marriage equity is an abuse of the 14th amendment are spot on.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  103. I hate that line,

    “We the people . . .”

    It’s a line mightily abused. And with increasing frequency, liberals and democrats are forgetting the portion of the sentence that includes,

    ” . . . of the United Sates.”

    The Constitution of the US is not a universal document not is intended to do so.

  104. @anarchyst

    For the black population, firing on Ft. Sumter was a blessing of sorts.

    But by doing so, they gave up having a discussion of whether becoming voluntarily part of the union was a lifetime contract. Making the question purely a matter of war — they had to win .

    They lost.

  105. Corvinus says:
    @anarchyst

    “WRONG! Illegal? By whose definition?”

    To the victors go the spoils. The South lost. A number of people there wanted to become part of the Union. They met the conditions as laid out.

    “Readmission to the “union” WAS done by force.”

    That is simply not true.

    “Union troops and the “carpetbaggers” were considered “foreigners (rightly so), and were used as a bludgeon in order to get the “states in rebellion” to submit to federalism.”

    You mean to adhere to the rule of law.

  106. KenH says:
    @Corvinus

    Sixty years of southrons repeatedly violating the spirit of the Plessy case was enough for the Justices, considering that southern states did not even have graduate or doctoral programs.

    The South just didn’t abide by Brown vs. Board until they were threatened by “conservative” Tricky Dick Nixon’s AG John Mitchell, who Southern states mistakenly thought was an ally, with federal intervention. They were asserting their 10th amendment rights which of course SCOTUS and the attorney general said were superseded by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by the SCOTUS’s ruling in Brown thus validating the person’s point who wrote to Ilana.

    The ruling was based on the rule of law according to the merits of the case. You are completely in over your head here.

    LOL. You are son. So what changed between Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board? The perfect storm of post WWII anti-racist and equalitarian attitudes of the elites and Jewish power and influence which scarcely existed at the time of Plessy.

    http://jewishjournal.com/news/world/9609/

    “Charles Black, a member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund team that argued Brown, used to joke that he was the only non-Jewish name on many of the briefs in that case.

    And as I previously said the court simply could have ordered states to provide school funding and public facilities for blacks that were on par with white facilities but the goal was always the forcible mixing of the races which had long been a goal of radical negro and (((communist))) groups. There were many blacks who didn’t want to be forcibly integrated with whites but there story has never been told since it runs counter to the lefty narrative.

    Fast forward to the 21st century and the federal judiciary now argues that discrimination against whites serves a “compelling state interest”. The 14th amendment is never invoked to protect whites, only non-whites, homos and transgendered.

    Thanks for the strawman. I am not a prog nor did I make the argument about those specific amendments being “narrow”

    Well almost all of your talking points come out of the prog playbook, but apparently those two are exceptions to the iron clad rules if you’re being honest.

    Because southern states in 1865 and 1866 enacted a series of laws known as “black codes” which were designed to restrict freed blacks’ activity…..

    Black codes had little do with it. Try again.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  107. renfro says:
    @Corvinus

    for the Justices, considering that southern states did not even have graduate or doctoral programs.

    Actually they did.
    At UNC (established in 1789,oldest public university in the United States ) they began in 1876, postponed till then by the war.
    Same for UVA (established in 1790)

    Pretty obvious you don’t know much about education in the southern states..you should educate yourself.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  108. annamaria says:

    meanwhile, the Russiagate has been steadily unraveling: https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/05/20/a-spy-in-the-house-of-trump/
    – The “Bond of Cambridge” (Halpern) had been using his old familial connections to do gesheft by undermining the lawful election process in the US. The regime-changing skills were finally applied to the homeland. Stefan A. Halpern holds dual citizenship (US/UK).

  109. “Nevertheless, the law often takes displays of the Decalogue or the nativity scene on tax-payer funded property as an establishment of a state religion.”

    And, yet, I remember a year when 2 cases involving this principle were going on in Los Angeles County: the County office building would be illuminated in the form of a cross after hours during the Christmas season — and was ordered struck down by the aclu — and it was done; meanwhile, in Beverly Hills, a menorah was erected on City property — and complaining citizens were basically told to stick it where the sun don’t shine — that it was just fine for the jews to erect their holy symbol on public property with impunity.

    One more for the lions — one less for the  … as usual.

  110. @EliteCommInc.

    Note that in early Christian art, Jesus is to John the Beloved

    http://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=jesus+john+beloved

    what Zeus was to Ganymede.

    http://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=zeus+ganymede

    Go on, take a look at those Christian paintings, if you dare to compare them. You’ll see the degenerate Jew Jesus isn’t any different than the pederastic Zeus.

    P.S. Do you really want eternal life in a Jewish heaven where normal sex is banned (Matt. 22:30) and where you, a male, are going to be the Bride of a swarthy middle-eastern guru? (Ephesians 5:22-33) Myself, I’m glad to skip the perversions you crave.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  111. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    “The South just didn’t abide by Brown vs. Board until they were threatened by “conservative” Tricky Dick Nixon’s AG John Mitchell…”

    That is the 1970′s, my friend. The Brown case was in 1955 during the Eisenhower Administration. There was no “threatening” here, just two prior cases in the early 1950′s that preceded Brown and set things in motion. The University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas-Austin had denied any opportunities for black doctoral programs, which was in direct violation of Plessy. In other words, none had existed for several decades. Fortunately, the Court redressed the grievances of those men who had sued. As a result, the “separate but equal” doctrine cracked.

    “So what changed between Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board? The perfect storm of post WWII anti-racist and equalitarian attitudes of the elites and Jewish power and influence which scarcely existed at the time of Plessy.”|

    No, what actually changed was that black veterans from World War II on the GI Bill went to college and sought to enter masters or doctoral programs. They discovered that these opportunities did not exist. The NAACP became involved by developing a legal strategy to attack segregation by way of the state educational system. They used sociological data culled from two decades and demonstrated clearly that Southrons had repeatedly violated the Plessy ruling. As a result, the federal government intervened. Even when “ordered”, southern states outright refused to adhere to the decision by denying American citizens their liberties.

    “but the goal was always the forcible mixing of the races…”

    No, that is simply other than accurate. There were southern whites who longed to publicly treat blacks with dignity and respect, and even in some cases marry and have children with them. That is freedom at its core.

    “The 14th amendment is never invoked to protect whites, only non-whites, homos and transgendered.”

    Actually, the 14th Amendment is invoked to protect American citizens, which includes whites. You are really not that bright.

    “Black codes had little do with it. Try again.”

    Wrong yet again. Southrons lost the Civil War. Their political, economic, and social institutions that revolved around slavery were destroyed. Southrons were certainly not in the mood to afford liberties to the newly freed slaves, so they passed black codes. Here is a primer. Please study it carefully.

    https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes

  112. Corvinus says:
    @renfro

    “At UNC (established in 1789,oldest public university in the United States ) they began in 1876, postponed till then by the war. Same for UVA (established in 1790). Pretty obvious you don’t know much about education in the southern states..you should educate yourself.”

    I was referring to graduate programs for black students in the South at public institutions. North Carolina did not even have a law school nor a medical school as required by Plessy until the early 1950′s.

    http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/nov01/bsm112601.htm

    Black students did attend the University of South Carolina briefly in the early 1870′s. The university closed at the end of the 1877 academic year and opened three years later as an all-white institution.

  113. That art does not suggest anything of relational intimacy — Unless someone considers the various male bonding gestures, shaking hands, a pat on the shoulder, the back, bear hugs, chest bumps, leaning on on another as indications of intimate physical relational contact, then those images are innocuous.

    Matt. 22:23 – 33 Verse in context

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=NIV

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/22-30.htm

    I have to walk carefully here. Because my experience is limited — but that scripture indicates that even the enthralls of relations with women din’t exceed the joy and satisfactions of a life in heaven. So much so that such relations will be unnecessary — that desire even will be surpassed by a greater bliss — but i have to admit I am operating from a pace of very limited experience. Hard to imagine something greater than one’s fancies but there it is. The joy of life is celibacy for single people such as myself.

    Ephesians 5:22-33 – in context

    http://biblehub.com/context/ephesians/5-22.htm

    I would encourage you to learn the meaning of metaphor. These are some of the most powerful and instructive references concerning marriage’s importance, status, and purpose between men in women of christ. It is of course a metaphor of the spiritual relationship Christ with believers. It has absolutely nothing to do with relational intimacy with Christ. And absolutely no, hint of anything intimate physically with christ.

    I am unclear what beef you have with christ or god, but you are encouraged to take those matters up directly with him. These facetious traps to malign believers, the church and spiritual dynamics of that relationship with god are not supported by scripture — either old or new. The god that I know is more than willing to have a conversation with about every subject and contention you have advanced and he will do in any manner you s o choose: yell, scream, kick, cajole, plead demand . . . he is more than able to handle it.

    Now I think on careful and honest consideration, you will find that he opposes same relational dynamics as you and I do, save he cares for them more.

  114. @Echoes of History

    Since I don’t have this perversions, I think your accusation is easily dismissed. As to the 14th amendment.

    It is none of my business what consenting adults do in their private spaces. However, when people seek to have their private relations invited into the public arena, members of the public are then asked to consider how account for the same.

    There is nothing equal about same sex relational dynamic that is similar in any way to heterosexual marriage — nothing. And with good reason , such relations should not think the state would do well to let the matter alone. As a practical social but socially discouraged – I am not talking about any manner of physical or legal violations.

    What a heterosexual dynamic brings to any community is unique and no other arrangement is sufficient to replace it. And there’s no need to encourage anything less valuable uniquely. Even I as a single person does not have the value to community that heterosexual unions have. Not cataloging same sex relations as legal marriages simply is unsupportable by comparison to what they provide.

    And the arguments by its advocates make that abundantly clear – there is no equitable comparison hence the reliance on emotional conjectures, something the Constitution s ill equipped to address and doesn’t — the arguments and the ruling abusive.

  115. @EliteCommInc.

    You don’t have those perversions, but you worship a degenerate Jewish Rabbi who did. You have a contradiction to resolve.

    Don’t avoid resolving your contradiction by writing paragraphs about the 14th Amendment. I never discussed it. We have no disagreement on it.

  116. @EliteCommInc.

    Correction:

    Cataloging same sex relations as legal marriages simply is unsupportable by comparison to what they provide.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.