Can A State Alter Qualifications for Election of The President Of The United States

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

The Office of the President of these United States was designed to be  a representative of the States in foreign affairs and the chief executive of the federal government.  Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the qualifications for this office, the conditions upon which the President is to serve and the limited powers delegated. 

Article 2 section 1 establishes that the President will hold office during the term of 4 years.  Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 provide that the President is not to be elected by popular vote but by representatives of the States, called “Electors.”  The number of Electors of each State is established by the number of Senators and Representatives a State has in Congress.  These Electors are appointed by the State Legislature and shall cast their vote for two people, one of which cannot be a resident of their own State.  Article 2 section 1 clause 5 requires every person running for office of President must be a “natural born Citizen,” thirty-five years old or older, and have lived within the United States for fourteen consecutive years.  The rest of Article 2 addresses the duties and obligations of the president once elected to office.

So in summary, the Constitution establishes that there are 4 requirements for an individual to be eligible to run for President:

• Natural Born Citizen,
• At least 35 years old,
• Lived in the United States 14 years immediately prior to running for office, and
• Be elected by the Electors of the States.

The Constitution of the United States was established as a contract between the States primarily to create a Union of States and a central government to establish a unified voice for the States in foreign affairs.  The Constitution creates the federal government not only by establishing the offices of the federal government, but also by specifically enumerating powers to each of its 3 branches.  The entire purpose for delegating each specific power to the federal government as opposed to reserving that power to the State was to create uniformity throughout the Union for specific federal and foreign functions.  The Tenth Amendment orders that every power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the people.  When a power is delegated to the federal government, all State-members of the Union are required by contract to be bound by the laws created to execute that particular power.  Article 6 clause 2 is the law on this matter and it states the following:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  

The requirements for the qualifications of the office of the President are established by the Constitution.  The purpose of the Constitution establishing these requirements is so that the terms upon which a president is elected is uniform throughout the States.  Therefore, the power to create the qualifications for the office of the President are not reserved to the States and the States are bound by the Constitution’s  requirements upon the office of President through their agreement to be part of the American Union. 

It is completely unconstitutional for a State to add to or take away from the requirements for the office of President established by the Constitution.  Not only would that be a violation of Article 2, Article 6, and the Tenth Amendment, but it would create utter chaos during federal elections.  If each State was permitted to establish their own independent criteria for election of the president candidates eligible in one State could be ineligible in another State.  The American people could never be confident they had a qualified candidate.

There is only one circumstance that the Article 2 qualification for office of the President does not apply to a candidate and that is the selection of a presidential candidate through the primary election.  A primary election is not a civic event.  A primary election is a private corporate event.  There is much confusion about this fact because Americans, over many decades, have been led to believe that political parties are part of the government.  They are not.

Political parties are private corporate clubs which is why they can establish exclusive memberships and are exempt from certain provisions of the non-discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act.  Primary elections are how political parties, aka private corporate clubs, choose the candidates that will represent them in the truly civic event we call general elections.  For the purpose of primary elections, political parties can ADD qualifying criteria to the office of president.  For example, a political party can require a candidate must be a member of the political party, must have served within the party for a designated number of years, or  any other limiting factor as long as the party maintains the Article 2 qualifications as well.  Because a primary election is actually a private corporate club event, many States hold closed primaries where only members of the private corporate club can vote in primary elections.  In reality, primary elections should never be paid for by tax dollars and should not be coordinated using State resources or funds.  The people of the State would never facilitate or fund the election of the CEO of Mc Donald’s Corporations so why are they funding and facilitating the election of the Chief Executive Candidate for the private corporations we know as Republican or Democrat Parties?

With these facts and the wisdom of the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution we must conclude that no State government can constitutionally add or detract from the qualifications of the office of the President.  To do so is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the contractual agreement each State has with each other through the Constitution. In addition to this truth, any State that attempts to alter the qualifications of any candidate during a primary election would be a violation of that private corporate club’s right to the property of their corporate elections, it would be an unlawful government taking and a violation of due process.

So what are the remedies to unlawful interference with elections on the State government level?  If that violation occurs during the primary election, the private corporate club party, the candidate, and the members of that club should sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance.  If that violation occurs during a general election, the people of the State and the candidate should again sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance.  In addition to the private law suit, the governor of every other State should issue a Resolution of Condemnation to the offending State for violating the terms of the Contract, the Constitution, and issue a demand for redress and restoration of the constitutional standard.  If the offending State should refuse to comply, according to Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 3, the President of the Senate must refuse to acknowledge the ballot from that offending State as it does not comply with the Constitutional Standard.

These remedies will only sound extreme to those who are not educated on the terms of the Constitution and the principles of contract law followed by those who ratified the Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

We must get back in the habit of applying the Constitution as it was intended.  When we do, we will see that the remedies are simple and based upon contract law and common sense.  Government only becomes complicated when we set aside the standard of the Constitution and rely on the word of politicians, pundits, and professors instead of the words and intent of Madison, Jefferson, and Mason.  The Constitutional crisis exist not in the failings of the Constitution but in the failure to abide by the Constitution.

Historical Proof- Why Britain MUST BREXIT!

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

British history is rich with sacrifice for the principles of Liberty; understanding that Liberty is a gift from God and not a privilege granted by government. It was passionate battles for Liberty that drove the wisdom of limited government that is seen in America and around the globe. In those battles for Liberty we find several repeating mechanisms of despotism; foreign influence, corrupt courts, diminishing property rights and government intrusion in church matters, just to name a few. Our forefathers paid a dear a price to secure our Liberty.

Many have repeated the phrase, “Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.” King Solomon said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Human nature never changes, and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We are walking a path of destruction we need not trod. Our forefathers forged a way for us to avoid tyranny in government, but we have put down their lamp and now wander in the dark. We cannot restore Liberty, we cannot recapture our future, without thehard earned wisdom of the past.

Beginning with the Anglo-Saxon resistance to Danish rule in the early eleventh century, the British people paid a dear price for the wisdom necessary to forge the way for just government. Yet it appears this crucible of Liberty is not immune from tripping over the same obstacles of their past. The Anglo-Saxon communities of the eleventh century, seemed to have an inherent understanding of the evils of foreign rule. Having had Anglo-Saxon kings in the past and upon the death of Danish King Sven Forkbeard, the Anglo-Saxons re-established their former Anglo-Saxon King, Æthelred.

Æthelred was allowed to be King, but under new terms; a limited monarchy where the King was to be in submission to the will of the people. The Witenagemot, who was particularly strong during Æthelred’s reign, would ensure this limitation of power. The agreement with Æthelred would begin the future of Liberty Charters, creating the new limited monarchy that would make the Kingdom of England unique and pave the way for limited government and secured Liberty to the people in the west.

When Edward the Confessor failed to produce an heir, the people found themselves in threat of foreign rule, once again. The heir to the throne would be the Norman, William I. In an effort to keep Norman rule out of England, the people would attempt to establish Harold Godwinson, an Anglo-Saxon, to be their king. The appointment of Harold by the people was a direct affront to the man who had earned the nick-name “William The Conqueror.” William raised his Norman army and defeated Harold and the people in the Battle of Hastings, reaffirming his Right to be king.

William I was Norman and that was the style of rule he intended to establish in England. However, the Anglo-Saxon style of rule, where the king bore a certain level of submission to the people, had become too deep rooted for William to overtly overturn. William, determined to rule in the unlimited nature of a Norman king, decided to establish his style of rule in a more surreptitious way. Instead of declaring his Divine Right to Norman rule, William began by replacing the jurists in the English courts with men who were not loyal to English law, but loyal to the ideologies of the King. With these men on the bench, William could enforce his foreign, Norman law on the English people even when it was contrary to English law. Apparently William knew what history and human nature dictates, that people are less suspect of the courts to change the politics of the land.

William knew that if he was going to transform England into Norman rule and avoid armed rebellion, he would have to change the ideology of those in the kingdom. William used the foreign, Norman law, the force of the courts, and even the physical force of his reign to chase the land owners who opposed his rule completely out of the kingdom. By foreign, Norman law, when land became abandoned the ownership of that land reverts to the King. William used this law to assume possession of the land he cleared and invited his Norman allies to live on these lands and support his reign. By force and manipulating the courts, William hoped to change the ideology of the land; by filling the kingdom with those who supported his Norman style of rule and by putting fear in the hearts of those landowners that remained.

The Norman foreign law transformation would take place over the reign of William I and his son William II. This oppression of the Anglo-Saxon style of government – kings in submission to people – would end with the “accidental” death of William II in 1100 when an arrow from William’s brother, Henry I’s hunting party “accidentally” hits William II in the eye. Henry I became be king, but not without controversy. In his efforts to please the people, Henry agreed to sign the 1100 Charter of Liberties; a promise from Henry that the evil and oppressive reign of his father and brother would end: “And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:…”

Henry restored England to “the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward” removing the foreign Norman rule over the people. This promise of Liberty would fade quickly in the minds of kings; nearly 100 years later, King John would engage in the very activity the Charter promised to eliminate.

King John was another Norman King, and is perhaps the most evil king England would ever know. The people described John as a “wicked, evil king,” that “even hell was fouled by the presence of John.” John was a massive taxation king. Those who could not pay their taxes found themselves in jeopardy of prison, mutilation, and even execution. John would transgress the boundaries and promises of Henry I’s 1100 Charter of Liberties. When the people chose Steven Langton to be their Archbishop, John denied the people their choice and inserted himself into the business of the church. This would be the last violation of the 1100 Charter of Liberties the people would tolerate: a rebellion formed against John. Through this rebellion, John was forced, by sword, to sign a new promise; The Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta reasserted the promises of the 1100 Charter of Liberties, but also established new limits upon the King.

This new limit on government, took a bold stand against the foreign influence that plagued the kingdom and required, “all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers” that aided John’s foreign Norman rule were summarily expelled from the kingdom. John would sign the Magna Carta with a sword at his throat and was removed from the throne less than a year later. The Magna Carta is often undersold in its importance. Prior to the Magna Carta, promises came by willing consent of the king. The Magna Carta established, in writing, the demands of the people upon their king and bound the limited monarchy to the control of a representative government.

The British people would have to battle with kings and queens for the next 4 centuries to maintain limited and local government and shun foreign influence to preserve the Liberties of the people codified in the 1100 Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta of 1215. The next true advancements in codified Liberty would come during the reign of Charles I.

Charles’ father, James I, would saturate the British government once again with foreign influence and power. This foreign ideology, along with its power and control, remained even as Charles assumed the throne. Charles’ refusal to be bound by Parliament and the people; his denial of the people’s rights in Liberty, led to next evolution of Liberty Charters; the Petition of Right of 1628.

The Petition of Right, an exercise of clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215, declared the grievances of the people against the King. This Charter listed eleven points of violation of the Liberties of the people and restated the violated provisions of the Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties.

Charles signed the Petition by the force of a sword to keep his throne. However, the promises he made to the people were clearly just to pacify his opposition; his blatant disregard for Liberty would continue. It is in the time of Charles’ reign that the people rebelled in the Bishop Wars against the king’s intrusion in their churches; a violation of both the Liberty Charter and Magna Carta. Charles was finally brought up on charges of treason in 1641, through the Grand Remonstrance.

The Grand Remonstrance, another Charter of Liberty, is a list of grievances against Charles’ violations of the three previous Charters. In this list we see, once again, the trials of the past that are direct warnings for our present and our future.

“The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established.”

This document is an invaluable lesson in human nature and government overreach. It is a survey of 600 years of kings and government, declaring a design in their actions whose only purpose is to overturn and undermine Liberty. Once again this document identifies the “malignant and pernicious design” as infiltration of foreign law and foreign influence upon government;

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home…to maintain continual differences and discontents between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative and liberty…to conjoin those parties of the kingdom which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide those who were most opposite…”

What were those foreign influences that were so destructive to liberty? A few examples found are the use of foreign law to deny people their guaranteed Rights through a corruption of the courts;

1. “And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them with informations in inferior courts…”
2. “The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound, still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve them…”
3. “and the diminishing the property rights of the people in the manner of William I and William II to consolidate power with the King; “The taking away of men’s right, under the colour of the King’s title to land, between high and low water marks…”
4. “The enlargements of forests, contrary to Carta de Foresta, and the composition thereupon…”
5. “Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture, under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out of the subjects’ purses, without any considerable profit to His Majesty…”
6. “Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without their consent, and against it…”

Charles was sentenced to death for his violations of Liberty and the people establish a higher standard of limited government than ever before. This influence of the people over government would have to be renewed in less than 40 years, during the reign of James II and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

James II boldly engaged in the same tactics of previous kings. Among his violations of the four previous Liberty Charters, James would completely ignore the separation of powers established between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches;

“By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;”

James, violating separation of powers, engaged in the writing of laws that were reserved to Parliament alone, so he could maintain foreign influence without Parliament’s obstruction. James also corrupted the judiciary by creating the Courts of Ecclesiastical Causes to circumvent the courts of common law, increasing the power of foreign law and influence, thereby wielding the law and judiciary by his will and that of his foreign advisers, contrary to the Liberty Charters and the will of the people;

“By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;”

James actions were as if he used the Grand Remonstrance as a guide book on what to do instead of a document limiting and denying the king’s authority. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the people’s response to James’ audacious disregard for the Liberties of the people. This revolution birthed the final installation of the Liberty Charters of Great Britain; the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was in this document that the people would not only declare the evils of foreign influence but also establish an oath of office for the government; all must pledge to eschew all foreign influence from this day forward.

 “I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

History proves that foreign influence is the enemy to Liberty. When government becomes yoked with foreign power it no longer needs the consent of the people; it no longer feels the control of the people; it no longer fears the condemnation of the people. A government with the aid of foreign influence has no respect for the Liberty of the people; it doesn’t have to. When the people cannot control their government, there is no limit to government power. A government with foreign backing will never allow limits by the people. Refusing foreign influence is the only way to maintain a limited government that respects the Rights of the people.

Foreign influence will also breed discord between the people and their government and the people with each other. When government refuses the limits of the people and enforces laws that are contrary to their Rights, both history and human nature dictate that hostility between the people and government will arise. Disharmony will arise between the people, pitting those who want to exercise their Rights and those who support the government and foreign rule. The irony of this inevitable consequence of foreign influence is that this conflict actually weakens the government and leaves it ripe for takeover by the very foreign power creating the struggle. Refusing foreign influence is actually essential in maintaining the security of the people and their government.

You cannot tame the fire of foreign influence. It does not want to help or guide; it wants to control and consume. But foreign influence cannot be controlled, molded, or even limited. Once allowed within your government, foreign influence is an all-consuming fire that will bring the destruction of a raging inferno. There has never been any other conclusion and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

How many of these same violations upon our Liberties do we find in government today? How often will we continue to blindly put ourselves at risk by yoking with foreign influence? In a day when we are believed to be more civilized and better educated than our centuries past, how can we be living with government engaging in the same “malignant and pernicious design” as these days of old?

Since we know that experience is an oracle of truth, where that experience shows the same results over and over again, wisdom says we must then hold those anticipated consequences to be an inevitability. History gives us those certainties about Britain remaining in the European Union.

This is not a conclusion based upon racism; that is an ignorant and ridiculous assumption.  This is a decision based upon history, truth, and inevitable consequences.  If Britain stays in the EU it will be the destruction of British Liberty and British government as you know it.

There are eternal consequences for our acquiescence to foreign power. History has given us all the direction we need to make a well-educated decision. We cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. If we neglect what we owe to God, our future, and the sacrifices of our past, our consciences will reproach us for our folly and our Posterity will curse us for our selfish considerations.

Politicians – Media- America’s Abusers

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

One of America’s Founders, Mercy Otis Warren, gives us a great deal to talk about in her quote:

“Thus we have seen…the many become slaves of the few; preferring the wretched tranqulity of inglorious ease, they patiently yield to despotic masters, until awakened by multiple wrongs; which once aroused to a consciousness of freedom…ever revolts at the idea of servtitude.”

Think about those phrases: “tranquility of inglorious ease” and “patiently yield to despotic masters.”

Sometimes, and I mean this quite genuinely, my heart and soul weeps violently over the modern American condition. Sometimes it feels like it is not possible that anyone could love America more than I do. I am certain that it is not true, but the depth of my emotion sure makes it feel like it sometimes. I don’t love America because of the majestic mountains, fields of grain, or the flag that represents our Republic. I love our American Union because I love Liberty. I love Liberty because I love the God that authored it. I love Him & I love His gifts with all my heart & soul.

So when I see my fellow brothers & sisters who speak fidelity to America, yet seek the solutions that bring about the opposite of Liberty, I can sometimes hardly hold back my emotions. I know this is not a new affliction. Hannah Winthrop said, “How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!” We do so because we have been trained in lies and error. We do so because we have been deceived, distracted, and convinced we are defeated before we even try.

Meditate on these words written by Thomas Jefferson in 1807:

“It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables.”

America’s media & politicians have become nothing but a source of sickening and toxic blither, whose only purpose is to divide Americans through contrived and artificial standards. They work to keep us hating each other so we cannot see the REAL enemy nor can we join together in Liberty and be truly free. We are enslaving ourselves at their command and we do not even realize it.

Americans are like the battered spouse and the politicians and the media are like our abusers; every day, constantly berating us into believing that we are ugly, we are worthless, we are stupid, and we are nothing without them; beating our spirits daily while smiling and whispering in our ear how much they truly love us. Like a controlling abuser, they isolate us from each other so we cannot know truth and we cannot find the power in each other to escape their foul clutches.

These abusers are causing us to enslave ourselves through their messages of hate, division, fear & partisan isolation. However, my fear is that we may be close to believing the lies of our abusers and that we are drifting further and further from the one thing that is our true love and salvation… The love of Christ that sets us free and gives us the Power & Ability to love our neighbor as ourselves. When the heart is full of vitriol then the spirit cannot be free. Our enemy is not each other. Our enemy are those who teach and encourage us to hate each other.

There have been times throughout our history that Americans have come together, in all colors, creeds, and genders, united in the name of Liberty & Justice for all. THAT is WHO America is in her spirit. We need reconnect with that spirit and look our abusers in they eye and boldly proclaim, “You have no power over me.” We need to unite, every American, regardless of skin color, political party, economic status, or geography- unite in the one thing that makes us all equal- LIBERTY. We have had victory before and we will have victory again. There is only one way- unified, together, in Liberty.

I will end these thoughts with a quote from Patrick Henry:

“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

We must want Liberty more than comfort. We must understand that without liberty our peace becomes our chains and bonds.

That is why I am ALWAYS & FOREVER- #LibertyFirst

KrisAnneHall.com

Gorsuch Sides With Scalia

by JC Hall

I thoroughly enjoy listening to and helping my wife, KrisAnne Hall dissect the legal opinions of this current Supreme Court.  I have discovered that going through these opinions is one of the best ways to learn about how our system is functioning, as opposed to how it should be functioning.  It has also been extremely clarifying to see the blind spots and ideological biases of the various Justices.  The US v Davis case is yet another fascinating glimpse into the Constitutional views of the All-powerful Nine-member Band. In this case Justice Gorsuch delivers another powerful defense of Constitutional principles.

In writing the majority opinion for US v Davis, Gorsuch sides with the late Justice Antonin Scalia (Johnson v US).  Gorsuch holds in Davis that overly vague criminal laws offend both due process and separation of powers – due process, by failing to give individuals a clear definition of forbidden activity; separation of powers, by forcing the courts, not Congress, to define criminal conduct. 

Justice Scalia put the first nail in the coffin in 2015 with his majority opinion in Johnson v US.  In Johnson, Scalia declared the very same statutory language before the court in Davis, to be vague and unconstitutional.  Justice Scalia wrote, “Government violates this guarantee (due process) by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” (as an aside, too bad Scalia didn’t seem to hold this view consistently when it came to Kelo v New London)

The Supreme Court dealt with the phrase again in April 2018 in Sessions v Dimaya. The majority explained that the Constitution disallowing vague laws, “guards against arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement by insisting that a statute provide standards to govern the actions of police officers, prosecutors, juries, and judges.”  Counting US v Davis, the vague language in these statutes has now struck out three times.  Since Gorsuch may have dealt the decisive blow, some may start to notice that his consistent liberty-minded approach on this issue is a real threat to the bipartisan fetish for big government.

Gorsuch seems to operate on a consistent principle that vague statues run afoul of the Constitution.  If a citizen cannot know what the law demands of him, then his liberty is in jeopardy.  This stirs the ire of both regulatory-minded, control-freak leftists and statist, police-state conservatives.

In the case of civil statutes that empower the government’s vast regulatory behemoth Gorsuch says, “Congress must set forth standards sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain whether Congress’s guidance has been followed….A statute that does not contain ‘sufficiently definite and precise’ standards ‘to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain’ whether Congress’s guidance has been followed at once presents a delegation problem and provides impermissibly vague guidance to affected citizens.”  This angers the new, green Marxists. They need vague regulatory authority for unelected bureaucrats to have free reign to legislate through the unaccountable “fourth-branch” of our post-constitutional government.

In the case of criminal statutes, Gorsuch holds that, “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”   This angers the police-state conservatives who wish to empower the government to run roughshod over the citizens’ liberty in order to stop a “bad guy” from doing “bad things” and then throw the book at him with as many sentence enhancements as possible. (Let’s set aside for a moment the argument that Congress lacks authority to make federal law regarding things NOT FEDERAL in the first place. That’s a blog for another day.)

Kavanaugh, for his part, did his best to make the police-state argument, “Bad guy do bad things. Bad guy must pay.”  His dissenting rant against gun ownership as being violent “by its very nature,” has him sounding like some raving leftist, gun-grabber from the House of Representatives, proving that a statist is a statist no matter if he sits on the left side of the sofa or the right.

Since SCOTUS is increasingly seen as the final oracle of truth on all matters whatsoever, we will see how Congress, judges, and others in the legal system adjust to this blow to vague statutory language.  Destroying this “wiggle room,” as our founders intended, would be a significant bulwark against the assaults on individual liberty by the regulatory state as well as by the police state.  Unfortunately, many Americans will miss the significance of this opinion since so many have been programmed to think in binary terms of left and right. So, they typically interpret SCOTUS opinions like the rest of their reality, by counting the number of “left supporters” versus the number of “right supporters.”  So, 99 times out of 100, this story will be reported and interpreted as “Gorsuch sides with left,” or “Conservative Duel: Gorsuch v Kavanaugh.”  There is only one dichotomy that matters, Liberty versus Tyranny.  None of these guys are perfect, but thus far Gorsuch seems to hold to the principles of liberty more consistently than any of his colleagues.

Learn More about our How our Judiciary is SUPPOSED to work with this DVD