Connect with us

Constitution

Rule of law yields to politics

Rule of law in the United States has yielded to politics, with elected officials selectively applying the law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

on

America, since its founding, has always functioned according to the rule of law. Thomas Paine (Common Sense) famously said, “The law is king.” This is still the clearest statement that America should be a republic, in which the law does rule. But now we see the law yielding to the worst kind of political expediency. Today members of the permanent political class literally do not care whether you live or die. And at least some of them want you to die so that they can rule without you to oppose them.

All of which to say that the people must now defend themselves directly, because we cannot depend on government institutions to enforce the law.

Rule of law threat one: the draft leak

The recent Draft Leak in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s puts one threat to the rule of law in stark relief. That leak broke the law to begin with. Whoever leaked that draft could only have done itto break the majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

CNAV continues to suspect one of two Justices of the Supreme Court in engineering it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most radical of the nine after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, is the obvious suspect. Her conduct during oral argument in certain cases, and her reputation for hiring the most radical of clerks, provide grounds to suspect her.

But Chief Justice John Roberts is also suspect. Arguably he, as Chief Justice, has the best opportunity of any of the nine. He would know Sotomayor’s reputation, which would make framing her ridiculously easy. Furthermore he has a power Sotomayor doesn’t have: the power to delay release of the final opinion. The precedent of the 2020 Term in theory lets him delay releasing a decision in Dobbs until August.

Trying to break the majority

Justice Sam Alito wrote the blistering draft opinion. According to a further leak, Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas will join him. Roberts offers to sacrifice the respondent in the case to “save” Roe. Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor would, of course, dissent.

Thomas will never budge. So maybe Roberts is working on Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh already has had someone try to assassinate him. (And apparently the President doesn’t care.) Now Barrett faces the intimidation of her children at school. (We have no word on any threat against Gorsuch – thus far.)

But let’s not forget Thomas. He won’t budge, so the pro-abortion side wants to remove him. That explains the ridiculous charges against his wife Ginni that she had a hand in what Democrats falsely label an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021. They want to remove Thomas from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason. But they know they’ll never get two thirds of the Senate to convict him on that charge. So they are temporizing, and trying to make Thomas feel guilty, and resign. Or else someone is plotting to murder him, just as someone tried to murder Kavanaugh.

Refusal to protect the Justices

And that, in turn, brings us to Democratic elected officials balking at providing enhanced protection for Supreme Court Justices. We already see the picketing of some Justices’ homes. That already violates the law. (See Title 18, United States Code, Section 1507.) Governors Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) and Larry Hogan (R-Md.) have already written U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about this. Their message is plain: “Mister Attorney General, do your job!”

Not only is Garland not doing his job, but the White House has egged them on from the start. This goes clear back to when Jen Psaki was still running the White House Press Office. And it is still going on today.

After the Draft Leak, the Senate voted unanimously to provide enhanced protection for all nine Court members. But the House stalled on that. Speaker Pelosi offered the excuse that the enhanced protection didn’t extend to the clerks. That doesn’t matter. If the rule of law means a thing, you pass one measure to protect those already under threat. Then you debate whether to extend federal protection to an additional class of persons. (Last CNAV heard, no one was picketing the homes of Supreme Court clerks.)

Three days ago the House finally passed the Senate’s measure. But twenty-seven House Democrats voted against it. They include almost all members of the so-called Squad, the almost all-female ultra-communist caucus in the House. (Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., to her credit, actually voted in favor.)

A Senator calls them on it

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently called the White House and other Democrats on egging on the illegal protests – and not doing anything after the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh.

I think, unfortunately for the left, the law is viewed as optional. If they disagree with the law, they refuse to enforce it. Whether it is the federal criminal law that protects these children or whether it is the federal criminal law that protects Supreme Court Justices.

That last referred to five specific near-newborn babies whom a late-term abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., discarded. The Attorney General should investigate but will not.

Cruz went on to say:

We saw just yesterday a man arrested for attempted murder of a Supreme Court Justice. That crime was actively encouraged by elected Democrats. Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened the Justices. The White House actively encouraged protesters to go to the homes of Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that it is there’s a federal criminal prohibition on doing so while a court case is pending – the only time that I’m aware of where the White House, literally from the White House press room, has encouraged the ongoing commission of a felony.

And even today, the Department of Justice has not arrested the protesters that are violating criminal law on its face because the president and the attorney general agree with their politics. Well, the law is meant to be applied regardless of party.

Rule of law threat two: refusal to enforce the law

Which brings us to another threat to the rule of law: simple refusal to enforce it. George Soros, the Mad Financier, has, over the past several years, financed the election of prosecuting attorneys who won’t prosecute when the law calls for it. Many of these non-prosecutors continue in office to this day. (Although the people of San Francisco recalled their non-prosecutor in a recent recall election.

We see this abuse of prosecutor’s discretion in threats not to enforce anti-abortion laws. Several States have laws already on the books that have lain dormant since Roe v. Wade. Others have “trigger laws” that will take effect if, as we still expect, the Court overrules Roe. But the Associated Press tells us that several prosecutors won’t prosecute abortion seekers or practitioners.

Nor, again, will the U.S. Attorney General arrest those who are picketing Supreme Court Justices at home. And this is the one whom Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) wanted to make a Supreme Court Justice! She wanted it so badly that she blubbed about the refusal of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring him up for a vote. CNAV is of the opinion that Senator McConnell stopped a bullet by that act.

We also see violent attacks against those offering young women an alternative to abortion. Pro-abortion activists have vandalized and firebombed at least six pro-life offices and crisis pregnancy centers in Buffalo. We know these are pro-abortion activists because the group, calling themselves Jane’s Revenge, bragged about it.

Crime runs rampant

Nor does this violence limit itself to the targeting of pro-life offices and clinics. Crime runs rampant in any city of any size, especially if Democrats run it. The notion of “defunding the police” remains current in Democratic Party circles.

We see such attacks against conservative politicians. On Sunday night, someone threw a firebomb into the office of State Rep. Andrew Barkis (R-Lacey, Washington). The only reason it didn’t burn down the building is that the office had a masonry floor. State Representative J. T. Wilcox provided video. Other influencers ask why we see no coverage of this incident.

The worst example of leftist politicians being copacetic with selective enforcement of laws against violent crime comes from the one “stag” member of The Squad. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) actually said that “white nationalists” want civil war in this country. Why would he say a thing like that? Could it be that he has similar plans? Clearly somebody does.

Twenty-five pro-life group leaders signed an open letter to Merrick Garland. Like Governors Youngkin and Hogan, they have a plain message: do your job.

Why won’t these officers do their jobs? The politics of abortion, again, are only part of the problem. In fact the left has a fundamental problem with enforcement of criminal law. Modern activists see any burglar or looter as another Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. A thief is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent.

Rule of law threat three: attempts to disarm the public

Worse, a murderer is an irregular population thinner. Except when they want to use a mass shooting, especially at school, to make a gun-control point, they don’t seem to care about the hundreds of murders happening in our cities today.

And that brings us to the third threat to the rule of law: blatant attempts to disarm the public. The ruling elite know that they dare not order the military, or law enforcement, to go door-to-door confiscating firearms. Current registration records record 130 million firearms owners in the United States. That’s only those the government knows about! Moreover, coronavirus – and “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” – has reduced our military to half strength.

And that half that is still strong, might include a few bully-boys (and bully-girls) who would love to kick in doors and take people’s guns. But the overwhelming bulk of active-duty military enlistees would refuse such an order. One source tells CNAV that the first officer to order gun confiscation will only start a mutiny.

So the ruling elite has to make you feel guilty for having them, and thus turn them in.

To that end, Beto O’Rourke and Matthew McConaughey make grandstand plays after the Uvalde school shooting. A State Representative in Delaware actually tells Second Amendment supporters to kill themselves. And Governor Tom “Big Bad” Wolf (D-Pa.) posts a cartoon telling how “red flag laws” would work.

At least someone had the wit to point out that it works both ways.

The Gang of Twenty

Speaking of Red Flag Laws, we have the Gang of Twenty who have proposed a “legislative framework” to pass them. They propose other measures, too, but the Red Flag Laws are the single worst part. Again, a red flag law lets the police swear out a warrant for coming to your door and taking your guns away from you. You get no notice to appear, no order to show cause, nothing. In essence, the judge tries you in absentia on the charge of posing a danger to yourself or others. The Tom Wolf “Jane and Randy” Cartoon fairly boasts of that.

Only Democrats, Independents who caucus with them – or Republicans not up for re-election or who plan to retire anyway – would sign on to a law like this. Still, it makes a mockery of the rule of law, like everything else they’re doing.

If anyone is really that dangerous to oneself or others, they might require commitment, not the second-class citizenship of gun confiscation. That’s assuming that the country wants to go the route of involuntary commitment. Better to let more than 130 million people arm themselves. In that way, a man with murderous intent doesn’t know whether his target can shoot back. And the target who does shoot back, might solve not only her problem but lots of other people’s problems. Not only that, but solve the problems before they can even become problems.

Are people waking up to the real enemies of the rule of law?

Maybe. A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll now shows that clear majorities – of both Party rank-and-file members – call it “likely” that America will cease to be a “democracy” in the future. Not only that, but Republicans, not Democrats, are winning the “preserve democracy” argument.

To be clear: the United States of America is not and never has been a democracy. A democracy not only has direct popular legislation but also does not respect any laws as unchangeable. Ancient Athens, which scholars call the “mother of democracy,” invented ostracism – banishment by popular vote. The Framers of the Constitution had a phrase for that: bill of attainder. Which means a legislative act declaring someone an outlaw. Those same Framers forbade that. They also forbade the ex post facto law – punishing someone for an act that wasn’t illegal when he performed it. These are only two of the prohibitions that make America a republic, not a democracy. A republic functions on the rule of law. A democracy does not, and risks devolution to an oligarchy – rule by a few.

But the point is still well-taken. People realize that if anyone has threatened good government, Democrats have.

The problem is that the ruling elite know that we know. And they will not go quietly into the night.

A mini-revolution?

As further evidence, consider the President’s plan to use his emergency powers to circumvent State laws against abortion. This after Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) threatened unspecified protest if he did not.

Biden went further: he suggested a “mini-revolution” would result if the Supreme Court overrules Roe.

How to protect the rule of law

The worst problem the country now faces is that political ideology now supersedes the rule of law. That certainly holds on one side of the political divide. If Members of the House and Senate respected the rule of law, they would have long ago cleaned out this administration, using the impeachment power of the House, and the trial authority of the Senate.

Sadly, impeachment has always been a political act. It is the one exception to the no-bill-of-attainder rule in the Constitution. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a political statement without foundation. So were the two impeachments of Donald J. Trump. Bill Clinton suffered impeachment, but for the wrong offense – the House should have accused him of treason. Instead they accused him of perjury in a civil lawsuit. And the Senate, in Democratic hands, nullified that accusation.

Similarly, Congress has practiced legislative nullification on “high crimes and misdemeanors in office,” and on offenses tantamount to treason. Meanwhile, the House seats a committee that exists mainly to pass bills of attainder and an ex post facto law. It also exists to propose Constitutional amendments and other measures to eliminate the electoral college and federalize all elections. If those measures pass, then the federal government will be a government of, by and for the lawless.

And that’s the emergency

And that’s the emergency the country now faces. We have public prosecutors, some elected, some appointed, who refuse to prosecute their “protected classes” of offenders. Furthermore, we see legislators and executives making public statements that amount to incitement to riot, pillage, and theft. To them, anyone who disagrees with them, forfeits all the protections of the law. They try to take your guns away, and callously let criminals do what they will. The only exceptions they make to this, are those that advance their agenda.

We have a slim chance to set this right. Midterms are coming up, and a very angry electorate stands ready to “flip” the House and Senate. Happily, patriots know now how to bolster the integrity of our elections. As they proved during the Virginia Pre-Midterm.

But the people must remember, guard, and exercise those rights that go to the heart of our Constitutional system. That means arming ourselves, and ignoring the heart-rending rhetoric that accompanies mass shootings. Point out that mass shootings need not occur anyway. (They don’t in Utah.)

Already a certain Representative proposes a 1000 percent excise tax on certain long gun models. This being a tax, he proposes using budget reconciliation to pass it. Don’t let things get to that pass. Get your guns now before anyone even tries to enforce such a tax.

The ruling elite have given away their game, with their loose talk of “civil war.” So we must prepare now, and fight it if we must.

We are not Canada

And remember: this is the United States of America, not Canada. When the Prime Minister of Canada dares tell his people:

You can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada. That’s not a right that you have.

He paints a picture of a future the ruling elite in America want to set up here.

Furthermore he shows how much he fears his people deciding they want to protect themselves. No doubt he wishes he or his predecessors had acted as Australia acted. In Australia, they did confiscate guns. With the result that Australia might as well resume its original name: Botany Bay, a vast prison colony.

The domestic violence argument

Obviously we have another problem, with the excuses the elite have for not wanting ordinary citizens to have guns. Actor Spencer Tracy expressed the sentiment in the motion picture Adam’s Rib:

I don’t approve of crazy women armed with deadly weapons.

Domestic violence does happen, and it happens because people enter into marriage without thinking of what marriage should be about. This offers yet another reason for the spiritual reawakening that General Douglas MacArthur recommended.

But that is for the future. We have a problem now with people predicating our rights on the conduct of bad actors. (Lysander Spooner famously told us what was wrong with that.)

So here is a message to all who value their freedom. If you have a problem with someone in your life, solve it. Don’t wait to become a statistic that someone can use to take away your rights – and those of others.

The church can and should step up to solve the problems, not only of domestic violence but also of mental health. Drugs might lift someone out of depression, but they leave him with the thoughts that drove him to that. Such a person becomes a time bomb. We must put a stop to this. Professors of medicine always tell their students to treat the underlying cause – and then don’t do it. Maybe our clergy have the better tools to treat the underlying cause.

The four boxes of liberty – or the rule of law

In closing, liberty and the rule of law, especially in a republic, rests on the Four Boxes. In the order of resort, they are the Soap Box, the Jury Box, the Ballot Box, and the Bullet Box. For the Soap Box, read freedom of speech and of the press. The Jury Box explains itself. (That’s also why the other part of the Seventh Amendment says that one does not second-guess a jury.) The Ballot Box also explains itself, as the country knows only too well. One of our enemies actually said it: elections have consequences.

Which brings us to another issue about solving a personal problem. We have a President Biden, in very large part, because enough people had a problem with President Trump. Whether that was the sole reason we have a President Biden, some are still debating. (That’s why at least some jurisdictions have better election integrity going into Midterms, though it isn’t perfect.) Nevertheless, without that baseline of people having a problem with how a President expressed himself, we have a President who can’t do the job. Or maybe he can – but the job he’s doing, threatens our liberties.)

Today that baseline is shrinking. That might explain the big push to lay a guilt trip on people to turn in their guns. They know the value of the Bullet Box, which is why they would deny it to us. Don’t let them.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

CATEGORY:Constitution
2 Comments
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] that, America has problems with crime and lack of respect for the rule of law. Without the rule of law, America will tear itself […]

[…] Justice Brett Kavanaugh – and the mainstream media won’t report it. This is but one example of lack of respect for the rule of law in the United States […]

Trending

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x