On Constitutional Enforcement

159807.and+your+supreme+court will+find+it+constitutional

Food for thought.

Especially for future governments.

23 responses to “On Constitutional Enforcement

  1. If Lineman or someone in western Michigan sees this, e-mail me at kunkmiester at gmail.com

    Due to family issues, we might be relocating, and looking at some networking, especially on the right side.

  2. when I hear the word “Constitution”, I reach for my gun. ‘Cause when you’ve got one…that’s already too much government

    • outlawpatriot

      Fortunately you’re a minority. And a very small one at that. You can be ignored. 🙂

  3. Government will never enforce Constitutional restrictions against itself. The idea is too absurd even to be debated.

    The sole effective enforcement agency for the Constitution is the people in arms. Unfortunately, gradualism and sloth have combined to render us unwilling to undertake the task.

    • True on both points.

      Succeeding generations are always going to be richer and softer than the preceding ones – provided the economic environment generates a surplus, which ours has at least until recently. Thus things will get worse and worse until the emboldened rulers finally push too hard and inadvertently kick off a conflagration anyway. Probably via ruination of the economy (inevitable in empires), combined with attempting to disarm the peasants. Then we get to start again from scratch, with a much smaller and now tougher population. It goes in cycles.

      That’s how I think it will work out, anyway.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      Keep in mind, taking out the government was easier in days of yore. One, it was small enough that it could actually be toppled by something less than a few Army Groups. Two, politicians were *touchable*. You could walk into the White House right off the street and meet with the President, for example. Most people have no access to anyone of consequence, anymore.

      • Mark Matis

        You have full access to their Praetorian Guard. And once those maggots decide they chose the wrong career, then Your Betters are very readily touchable. Just ask Mussolini. Or the Ceausescus.

        • Jimmy the Saint

          Ok, so go to the White House gate and try shooting your way in – suffice it to say, large wager on the Praetorians stopping you. And while dictators may end up in a ditch, it takes *a lot* to get them there.

    • outlawpatriot

      Fran, you can say militia. It’s alright. It’s not a dirty word. 🙂

      • (chuckle) No, it’s not a dirty word. It’s just that “militia” originally referred to a body of armed men organized and directed by a state government — and the state governments require Constitutional discipline just as much as the federal one!

        • outlawpatriot

          Tee hee. Can I ask you a question? If a government is acting tyrannical, how then does a militia become active if it is under the command of said government? Seriously. The government suddenly comes to the conclusion that it is acting tyrannical and decides to call out its militia to bring it back in line? Really? 🙂

          • That was my point. The ultimate enforcement power must be completely free of all attachments to government at any level. It can’t be a state-organized, equipped, trained and commanded militia. If we’re to use the word militia in this context, perhaps we should qualify it: an independent militia. Or perhaps a free militia. Emphasize the disconnection from any level of government, that there might be no unfortunate ambiguities.

        • Grey Ghost

          Sorry Fran, I respectfully disagee. The militia were originally all able bodied men of a locality. They could form in a minute (remember the minutemen) and defend the local area without the intervention of the colonial govt located at some “far off” location. Remember they had no means of “fast communication”. So you really think militias were “directed” by the state. Ok, you can believe that if you want to.

          Grey Ghost

  4. “Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.”

    The Dutch had an enforcement clause in their goobermint.

    Seriously the founding fathers put 2A in their to keep the tyranny off the table, unfortunately our society is much more consumed with tranny and would never consider doing harm to a member of the sacred politishun class.
    Kids, from ’07 to ’13 the average Merican family lost 1/3 of it’s net worth, while the CONgress kiddies increased theirs by 16%. Of course they did jail all the fraudclosure proprietors….oh wait

    I pledge allegiance to the flag and the banana republic for which it stands…..

    I’m Dick Tater and I approved this message.

  5. Nice write up but essentially useless in our current circumstances. Why? This is little more than continued groveling before the overlords for enforcement of a document they’re already ignoring. Logic means nothing to the black robes on the legal bench and their badged thugs are going to do whatever they’re ordered to do to maintain the status quo. That’s the reality of the enforcement clause and it will stay that way until there’s a separation or removal.

  6. Maybe I missed it over at ZP, but what about the oft discussed “assassination clause” ?

    “Whoever can demonstrate that the decedent (politician or bureaucrat) was infringing on his Rightful Liberty shall not be found guilty of murder. “

  7. outlawpatriot

    Refreshing to read something like that. Real problem solving.

    Gotta win a war first though. 😉

    • I declare War.

      A State of War has existed between fedgov and The People since________ .

      Take your pick but long enough that the shooting, trials for treason and hangings should have commenced, long since.

  8. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..