The Tyrant in the Room

The violent riots on college campuses designed to shut down free speech are simply the latest sign of the elephant in the room: modern liberals are fascist tyrants at heart who reject democracy, free speech, and pretty much everything else in the Constitution. They are not patriots with a different vision of democracy, but traitors who want to remake America into a one-party state where the government rules the people.

That may sound harsh, but recall that liberals vilified Donald Trump when they thought he might reject the results of the election because of voter fraud. Yet now those same liberals are demanding that everyone resist and fantasizing about assassinating Trump, even though we now know, thanks to Jill Stein, that there was no voter fraud favoring Trump.

Does anyone doubt that if the scenario were reversed – not that it could be, because conservatives aren't fascists – liberals would be declaring the conservative resistance to be fascists?

At the moment, the biggest battle in ending the fascist aspirations of the mainstream left in America is the decision of whether or not the Supreme Court will continue to be a tyrannical institution designed to oppress the people or whether it'll return to its roots and serve as an impartial interpreter of the law.

Calling judges tyrants may seem harsh, but anyone who makes up laws under the guise of interpreting the law is a tyrant imposing his personal will on the people. Such actions are a rejection of the core tenet of the Constitution that political power flows not from the barrel of a gun or from being appointed to the Supreme Court, but from the people.

FWIW, what John Locke regarded as usurpation occurred when “one is got into possession of what another has a right to. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. Lawmaking is but a delegated power from the people; they who have it, cannot pass it over to others.” Every lawmaking act by the exec or scotus is a usurpation.

He defined tyranny as the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a power to. Like any private individual, government, for instance, may not murder or steal, even if congress authorizes the president to do so. James Madison went further than Locke, and viewed tyranny as the combination of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the hands of the one, the few, or the many.

Robarts stay of Trump's exec order was a usurpation.

Scotus fag marriage and Roe decisions were usurpations and tyrannical as well.

Article V to reverse the rot and restore free government.

Well, the philosophy and moral compass set by John Locke was certainly enlightened and was also incorporated into the Constitution by our well-read and clear-thinking Founders. So now, we have a stronger argument against federal tyranny than John Locke’s moral and philosophical argument. We have the Constitution which is codified law against federal tyranny.

What America needs is the states through the people and elected federal officials through the people to rise up and enforce the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended as the ONLY legitimate source of delegated and enumerated federal power.

As such, EO’s should be questioned because they generally combine lawmaking (usually “regulations” or authorizing regulations) and enforcement in the executive branch, whereas the Constitution limits federal legislation to Congress, nowhere else. Tyranny isn’t questioning federal acts. Tyranny is the unconstitutional federal acts themselves and we’re in this mess because these acts haven’t been question and nullified by the states and overturned by the feds.

I have no problem with any court scrutinizing IN GOOD FAITH, questionable federal acts like EO’s. However, I do have a problem with bad-faith federal-court cases that ignore constitutional law. The case in the Robart court wasn’t a good faith challenge to the merits of Trump’s EO but a move to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) which was issued in bad faith IMO since no irreparable harm was shown to validate a TRO. Also, IMO, the case in the Robart court should have turned on the Constitutional requirement that, “The United States…shall protect each of [the states] against Invasion” (Article IV, Section 4) which should have trumped the TRO regardless.

Trump’s immigration EO appears to be necessary and proper pursuant to the Constitution (Art IV, Sec 4) & federal law (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), so Trump should win this court case and move forward with the order which is necessary for our protection against invasion. However, the U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12 statue appears to be contradictory because of U.S.C. 1152 (a)(1)(a) (anti-discrimination clause) which is being used in these challenges. Congress needs to clean that up and generally avoid vague laws & statutes.

Intentionally vague law is a problem with many acts of Congress and has allowed the creation of the utterly unconstitutional fourth branch, the Administrative/Regulatory State. For way too many years and decades, Congress has avoided controversial legislation by allowing the emergence of the Regulatory State to do their dirty work (most of which is unconstitutional anyway) and/or allowing the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to make national law.

It is way past time for the people and the states, and the other branches of the feds, to demand Congress stop passing vague law that gives legislative power to the executive branch and/or constructive legislative power to SCOTUS. And it is way past time for the states and the people to quit letting SCOTUS case decisions become national law.

So the work ahead is

1) dismantling the 70% to 80% unconstitutional portion of the federal government (with ready, willing, and able officials like Trump and God’s blessing and strong arm),

2) limiting federal lawmaking and execution to procedure authorized by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land,

3) limiting federal courts including SCOTUS to their Constitutional purpose: NOT making national law, but deciding individual cases and controversies (Art II, Sec 2) and if it is a sound constitutionally-based decision, binding ONLY to those parties of the case and any other parties with cases having the same questions of law and fact.

These things should begin NOW and doesn’t need an Article V convention to proceed. The Constitution as written and originally understood and intended must be enforce NOW by the states and the people, and by elected federal officials.

If an Article V convention somehow jumps through all the necessary hoops to come up with the right amendments (term limits and repeal of 17A (repealing 16A would be great but would seem impossible) (NOT a balanced budget amendment, NOT a national sales tax amendment - both would be disastrous)), great - that would be helpful. But it is not required to do the heavy lifting needed to begin now, and has started with Trump’s anti-establishment movement.

More at https://sonsofconstitutionalliberty.com/ which is still under construction.

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.