Posted on 06/20/2022 6:10:08 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Good points. And since Pelosi and her henchpeeps actually caused the violence, they are criminals covering up their own crimes.
They need to face justice for their crimes.
I’ve given up on Levin twice now.
The first when it became evident he was a congenital never-Trumper.
Took me years to forget.
The second was when he ignored the entire history and politics of the Russia/Ukraine/globalist-gangster proxy coup and Ukraine’s genocide of it’s Russia-speaking population and went full knee-jerk globalist cheerleader.
I’m not coming back this time.
PS - Alex Jones was right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve given up on Levin twice too, first was when he didn’t care that 0bola was not a NBC, or in fact not a citizen at all.
Second was his support of Ctuz despite his non-NBC status, and his never-Trumpism.
I did not know he sided with the Nazis, thugs and criminals in Ukraine and ignored the history and facts and went full on globalist, I haven’t been paying attentino to him.
So three strikes and.... HE’S OUT!
Which is exactly how an autocratic coup d'etat is designed to succeed!
Not a fan of any progressive. From their earliest days in the 19th century they wanted something besides our constitutional republic, something more in line with the French Republic.
You may not be aware but John Marshall made an reference to this in Marbury, noting that there is a style of constitution that only broadly outlines the departments of government and those that go further by declaring what are the only powers enumerated to government to achieve the responsibilities of those departments. Marshall was absolutely on board with the Constitution being one of delegated powers where all other possible powers were reserved to others besides the federal and I think it reasonable to assert that he was against what would someday be called “progressivism”, which wants and has always wanted Arbitrary government.
It’s pretty amazing how often Jones has been right.
“the entire history and politics of the Russia/Ukraine/globalist-gangster proxy coup and Ukraine’s genocide of it’s Russia-speaking population...’
Do you have good succinct source for all that? So many jumbled reports out there.
bmp
I was conflating Chester arthur with Teddy .. another mistake! All sorts of misattribution. I should work to reduce my rate of that.
Sobran was also using the phrase ‘Post-constitutional America” around twenty years ago. He saw the direction things were headed early on, called the elites on it, and suffered the consequences.
Knowing of Chester Arthur’s questionable birth puts you well ahead of the pack.
A similar fate happened to Sam Francis thanks to D’Souza’s campaign to smear him as a racist. That was back in the ‘90s when Dinesh played a game of charging paleocons with racism in order to ingratiate himself with the MSM. He found out that didn’t help him but it did damage others.
I’ve heard that WFB helped Sobran some financially but considering his own cowardly role in ruining him it doesn’t count for much.
20 plus years ago we had writers like Sobran and Francis.
Today the likes of Hannity and other shallow talking heads dominate.
Marshall himself gets charged with a power grab for the Supreme Court in Marbury vs Madison.
Delegated powers, State’s rights, Hamilton vs Jefferson... some of this goes all the way back to Antifederalists George Mason and Patrick Henry warning that replacing the Articles with the Constitution would create a tyrannical central government.
Thanks for reminding me of Sam Francis — another under-appreciated giant. If I remember correctly, after he was forcibly expelled from polite conservative society, he too had trouble making ends meet. He lived in an older neighborhood (in Baltimore?) that decayed and became “vibrant” around him, but he couldn’t afford to move. He died when his aorta split open and surgeons were unable to repair it. He was only in his late 50s or so.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It may surprise but it was NOT Marbury that showed a general agreement with the idea that a department of government could review the acts of another to see if they were in accordance with the Constitution, as that had already been demonstrated in a previous case concerning the management of Revolutionary War pensions which Marshall makes an extensive reference of in Marbury.
Instead, once Marshall is through with the preliminary slogging work and actually on to the meat of the matter before the Court, what concerned Marshall was the justification for such acts of review, why they were lawful, and implicitly what is therefore the only lawful methodology for review (and it is definitely not how the modern court goes about it).
There was real cause why Marbury was of little interest to so-called “progressives” for so long, at least intil they managed to lie about it and distort it to be something completely different than what it actually was.
You see, in Marbury we find Marshall justifying review because of fidelity to the Constitution, not just the mere appearance of words on paper but in accordance to the original right of those who Ratified it ... and we also find Marshall implicitly extending that same obligation for fidelity to those in other departments whom, he notes, take the same oath of office.
As I sometimes say, taking my cues directly from Marshall, if it is “worse than a solemn mockery” to require justices take their oaths of office and yet make them close their eyes to the Constitution (as agreed to by those that Ratified ... the original right) and only see statute then what is it to require others to take the same oath yet make them close their eyes to the Law and only see the opinions of the Court?
Early “progressives” did not like or use Marbury because, not having been yet able to corrupt how people understood it, it actually stood in their way.
Now, as an aside, you mentioned Hamilton but I would challenge you with this thought: before Ratification he played a very different tune concerning the doctrine of delegatee powers than he did later, after Ratification, while serving as a mere official in the government the Constitution permitted.
When people speak is important, you see, for who was the Sovereign to make the Constitution Law? Was it the States that Ratified or was it Hamilton?
Hamilton and the rest had to put down their pens and cease writing the Constitution so that those with lawful power to Ratify could consider it.
They reasonably had the lawful power to offer advice to those with the right to give, or withhold, consent but once the Constitution was Ratified nothing they could further say can reasonably be considered actually giving such advice to those with the power of consent.
The Constitution had already been Ratified.
Hamilton was not the Sovereign, and his later statements contradicting what he and others has said before Ratification are only, and can only be, spurious and without weight. Actually, they represented lawlessness.
Of course the modern Court loves to give hear to Hamilton the Secretary of Treasury as if he was a Sovereign because they too want to scribble in their own margin notes, as it were, and direct all inquiries concerning the Law to their opinions and away from the Law.
Sam Francis did have a tough life after Dinesh’s hit job cost him jobs.
Francis’ writing may well be where Trump got a lot of his ideas. More than a few have noticed a similarity. A shame that he didn’t live to see it.
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.