Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
====================================================================================================================================================
When you vote in November, you may think you are deciding between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But that’s the least of it. The next President will have the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, and following the current trend, the President probably will appoint youngish people, who, long after the President leaves office, will continue to rule for many years.
Contrary to popular wisdom, and contrary to the Supreme Court’s own claims and stated opinions, the Court’s decisions do not obey the word of the Constitution. Rather, despite self-proclaimed “originalists,” (Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas being the most notorious), the Court interprets the Constitution in light of its own personal, political leanings.
====================================================================================================================================================
Consider Guns: The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Court has “infringed” that right in many ways. Criminals are prohibited from owning guns. The Constitution doesn’t say that. You can own a semi-automatic gun, but cannot own not a fully automatic gun. The Constitution doesn’t make that exception.
You need to be 21 years old to purchase a handgun, and 18 years old to purchase a long gun. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about that “infringement.”
There are dozens, indeed hundreds of laws, that in one way or another “infringe” on the right to bear arms. Even the word “bear” is suspect. Does it mean “own” or does it mean “carry” (the more usual definition of “bear”)? The Court makes a distinction not mentioned in the Constitution.
====================================================================================================================================================
Consider Abortion: The landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was decided under the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Right wing “Originalists” would be hard pressed to find the word “abortion” anywhere in that clause – not even hinted at. All the clause says is there must be “due process.”
Presumably, if there were a law allowing a mother to have an abortion at any time, and for any reason, that would constitute “due process of the law.” Contrarily, if the law prohibited any abortion, ever, that also would constitute “due process of the law.”
Further, the left wing invented a “right to privacy,” which also cannot be found in the 14th Amendment.
====================================================================================================================================================
Consider Campaign Finance: In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the 1st Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Court decided that corporations are peaceable assemblies of people, and that spending money is part of free speech, and “There is no such thing as too much speech,” and “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Yet, apparently the Court believes there is such a thing as too much speech, and corporate expenditures do give rise to corruption, because we do have campaign contribution laws. Political action committees (PACs and “super PACs”) are restricted by various laws, which even today are in a state of flux.
The very existence of campaign finance restrictions indicates that rather than interpreting the “original intent” of the Constitution, the Court restricts speech by making law according to its modern political beliefs.
====================================================================================================================================================
In each of the above arguments, and in dozens of others, the Court claimed to base its decisions on the word of the Constitution, then created laws that if taken literally, deny the very decisions the Court has just rationalized.
Clearly the right to bear arms is infringed every day; The right to an abortion is both allowed and proscribed, though not mentioned in the Constitution; and speech neither is free nor limited. So much for “original intent.”
Today, the Court is almost, but not quite, evenly divided between the right wing and the left wing. Though the Constitution makes no such distinction, the readers and interpreters of the Constitution do.
Both the right and the left claim to believe in “freedom.” The right wing leans toward the moneyed class and its belief in freedom from government interference in its finances, along with male domination and religious absolutism.
The left wing leans toward empathy with the less powerful and their desire for freedom from government interference in personal matters, human equality, and freedom from religious absolutism and domination by the moneyed class.
So when you vote in November, the less important issue is Obama vs Romney as leaders. Presidents come and go. The real issue is right vs left.
Who are you?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
The US Supreme Court clearly ruled on the issue of “Bear” and both Ginsburg and Scalia agree based on how the phrase was used when it was written. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to read the Constitution, look at what the Founding Fathers were doing at the time and try to apply it to current situations.
“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them” Supreme Court Opinion
“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Com plete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” ”
You are correct in stating that the 2nd Amendment is being infringed. But understand that the Founding Fathers had some basic gun laws in place for safety reasons.
Current gun laws before Heller were created by using the Miller case and taking it way out of context. The Supreme Court had refused to hear a case or see a challenge against those laws that infringe on it so lower courts and state laws stood. If no one challenges it, then it stands. If someone breaks that law, then they have standing but have to wait for the court to decide to hear the case. As of right now the court has not decided to look at this issue nor has anyone challenged in for some time. The SC has already stated in Heller that they expect to see them in the near future.
Before Heller, gun law in the US was only really covered by the SC in the 1934 Miller decision. If you read the Miller decision you will see how for gun control advocates reach to make it fit. The Supreme Court now has struck down the reaching with the following remarks about Miller.
When ruling on the relevance of United States v Miller (1939), the Supreme Court finally decided that lower courts were getting too creative with how to interpret Miller. The Supreme Court stated:
“Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.”
“It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”
“The defendants made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment).”
“Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case”
“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns”
“We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”
“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.”
“But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
LikeLike
Washington Post:
That says all you need to know about originalism.
LikeLike
Is this a serious article?
Both the so called left and right are as bad (or as good) as each other. Part of the problem is people naively believing there is a difference.
LikeLike
Ah, so you’ve made the calculation and you’ve found that the left and right are equally “bad.” I’m curious about your criteria and your weights.
LikeLike
sure they are, not
LikeLike