Posted on 05/15/2015 7:01:46 AM PDT by fredericbastiat1
I used to think if we had five Nino [Antonin] Scalias or five Clarence Thomases on the [Supreme] Court that we could make a lot of progress. And I have been disabused of that notion for the following reason: There were a series of four or five Supreme Court decisions from 1937 to 1943 which changed — well, changed isn’t the right word — unleashed the government from the constrictions of the Constitution. It unleashed them from being stuck with the enumerated powers, it redefined the Commerce Clause to mean manufacturing and agriculture even if it only has indirect effects on interstate commerce.
Then you had a lesser known decision, but just as important whereby in 1943 in a decision involving the National Broadcasting Company, the Supreme Court said “You know, the Congress doesn’t have to supply a specific intelligible principle in it’s legislation,” which more or less says to the regulatory agency “You’re supposed to do A, B and C.” It can say “Give us fair broadcasting rules,” and that’s good enough. Well, this unleashed the regulatory state to go out and make up whatever regulations they wanted.
… [O]ur legal system is increasingly lawless. It just doesn’t correspond to what we usually think of as the rule of law. And the other thing is that the political process is systemically corrupt. I don’t mean we have more corrupt people in the government, I mean the system now operates in ways that are indistinguishable from the way that a kleptocracy operates.
Pretty grim argument, but I think it’s one that you can sustain.
Murray explains how he came to the conclusion that the solution to what ails us lies in civil disobedience:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Bkmrk for later.
I ordered the book yesterday.
Bfl.
Yup. Nothing "democratic" about a Code of Federal Regulations which is now at 175,000 pages, or was as of last week...undoubtedly higher now.
So.
The plan to defeat the legal system is to get “the rich” to provide funds to take the government to court.
Yes. That will work.
Ummmmmm, who pays the salaries of those government employees and judges?
That’s right. It’s us.
They TAKE our money and then they attack us. Quite a system.
It would be great to expand this to other areas of government harassment.
Hm?....How about defense against the abuses of Child Protection Agencies?
Finally.....Legal pressure should be brought to bear against these abusive men and women **personally**!!! It is time they had to defend their homes, reputations, and savings **personally**.
I have posted many times that when government schools are sued, the people to go after are the principals, superintendents, and teachers, **personally**!
The Homeschool Legal Defense Association works very well for homeschoolers. They go after the reputations of the abusers **personally**.
It would work if the government's abusive functionaries were sued **personally** and risked losing everything they **personally** owned.
I finished the book yesterday.
The comprehensive information on “how we got here” is worth the $11.84 I paid for the Kindle edition.
How his plan would work is yet to be seen. There are many legal foundations that drag various government entities into court and win. The idea is to beat the administrative state in a “death by a thousand paper cuts” fashion.
He essentially wants to "ACLU" sue ( as a verb ) the living snot out of them and tie them up, as a counterpoint to their dragging us down via regulation. I am not sure we can via your statement of how it will work.
Combine this with the Article V movement, and we might have a fighting chance...
I must admit, it was sad the other day to hear he believes we are over as we knew it. It is what we discuss here at length @ FR, but to hear it from Mr Murray was something at a different level...
Yes. A big way that the Progressives have been winning is by using private/non-profit orgs to sue the government, then have their fellow Progressives IN the government cave to the suit before it even goes to trial with things like consent agreements.
Completely undemocratic. But incredibly effective.
I’ve got zero problem with civil disobedience and I encourage it. I have equally zero patience in calls for armed revolution. That makes you a traitor.
However, if he is not the presidential nominee, I think that Ted Cruz would make a superb justice of the SCOTUS. He would likely inspire and drive the court strongly to the right for many years, leading them to neuter much of a century of progressivism.
Good article and interview. Thanks for posting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.