May 26, 2017

The Source of American Individualism

In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian concepts of Galatians 5:1, 13, 14, 15 are magic in that these verses are consistent with the assertion that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution comes from the concept of Judeo-Christian God-given rights.

Gal. 5:1 “Freedom is what we have – Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.”
13″But do not let this freedom become as excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another.”
14 “For the whole Law [think the Bill of Rights] is summed up in one commandment: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
[The American principle of “Mind your own business” comes to mind.]
15 “But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another.”
[Don’t behead people for the common intellectual curiosity of exploring other faiths or even atheism.]

Galatians 5 shows us that arguments for marriages based on physical desires such as sexual preferences actually pushes Godless hedonistic sin cleverly masquerading as sacred Judeo-Christian God-given individuals’ freedoms protected under the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Such deception is only possible through a systematic corruption of the national education system in particular law schools. And it may take beginning the discussion of yanking accreditation of law schools that bury, for example, US v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [right of individuals to assembly and to bear arms predates US Constitution and are rights not dependent on the Constitution] before systemic changes can be made.

American Judeo-Christian God-given human rights for individuals address critically important freedoms from the brutality and barbarism of the King’s and of Roman Law’s absolutism (that Prof Hamburger discusses in legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014). Somehow the Godless would have us believe that American individualism, that is, the Bill of Rights, should include marriages based on physical desires contrary to our Founders’ Judeo-Christian views of freedom. Trials without jury, baseless warrants, seizure of private property, beheadings and other cruel and unusual punishments and more are the true forms of slavery and oppression.

Consider also these sources:

Our individual rights are sacred.
A legislative assembly has an inherent right to alter the common law, and to abolish any of its principles, which are not particularly guarded in the constitution. Any system therefore which appoints a legislature, without any reservation of the rights of individuals, surrenders all power in every branch of legislation to the government. The universal practice of every government proves the justness of this remark; for in every doubtful case it is an established rule to decide in the favor of authority. The new system is, there, in one respect at least, essentially inferior to our state constitutions. There is no bill of rights, and consequently a continental law may controul any of those principles, which we consider at present as sacred.” Id, Agrippa, Tuesday January 14, 1788, p. 538 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Spelling and capitalization in the original.]

Purpose and importance of the Constitution and its relationship to Government.
[Note that our Founders reference a Judeo-Christian God here as the Maker.]
If it be considered separately, a constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society. Government is the exercise of them. It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: and the awfulness of the trust is demonstrated in this – that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker, and is therefore sacred. It is then an offence against Heaven, to violate that trust.” Letter 4 by John Dickinson as Fabius, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 794 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Emphasis in the original.]

Livy, sharing thoughts from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Jail Without Trial

Where is the criminal defense bar and the ACLU when the administrative state claims it can send “actual human beings to jail” without trial in violation of the Magna Charta and the US Constitution……….

CFTC Turns Toward Administrative Judges

It’s time for lawyers and others everywhere to read the legal work titled “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014, Prof Hamburger.

Quite frankly, the excuses they told us in law school to allow the administrative state to evade the law and the Constitution do not hold up under Prof. Hamburger’s scrutiny. And now we have this: Jail (federal prison) without trial. An administrative state that is limited by neither the law nor the Constitution has unlimited power.

This applies to the lesser prairie chicken land grab and the EPA waters of the US land and water grab and more.

In fact, the EPA tried to get garnishment of wages for the payment of fines, but was turned back, this time.

EPA backs off on wage garnishment rule

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Have we cracked the nut of individual strict liability for gov’t bureaucrats involved in releasing dangerous animals in America?

It’s time to ask the question: Are wolves the chosen and specially selected de facto agents of the lawless bureaucrats? Shouldn’t the principle of strict liability apply to the individuals in their individual capacities for the negligent release of dangerous wild animals? Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” sets out considerable legal research with court precedent and history questioning every aspect of bureaucratic overreach of the burgeoning Administrative State and also deals with holding individual bureaucrats in government liable. And don’t forget the deep pockets of the NGOs who are also instrumental in the release of dangerous wild animals. Also don’t forget the deep pockets of a lot of donors who have specific knowledge about wolf releases, going on hikes in the wilderness to see the wolves, verbally encouraging the wolf releases, an activity that many rightfully compare to criminality. Aiding, abetting and encouraging unlawful behavior, behavior they should have known was very risky toward innocent victims such as ranchers and their property, can have legal consequences.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/25/u-s-government-releases-predators-against-its-own-people/

Check out 3. in the link below summarizing Gerry Spence’s use of strict liability to make Kerr-McGee liable for the negligent release of a dangerous substance. How difficult could it be to apply strict liability for the classic purpose, that is, the intentional release of a dangerous wild animal……………….

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724.html

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Taxation without representation? Sure looks like it to me.

A discussion of the unlimited power of the Administrative State in light of law of thoughts and research presented by professor Phillip Hamburger’s book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”.
http://tomremington.com/2014/08/13/is-administrative-law-unlawful/

While considering the thoughts and opinion expressed in the link above, think about the following.

The prohibition against taxation without representation began with this country’s founding. This prohibition is the reason that local boards, be they hospital districts, groundwater districts, municipal utility districts, city councils, county commissioners courts or other subdivision created by state government, are elected. The elected members of those local governments, because they are elected, represent us as they tax us.

Now consider Texas Water Code sec. 36.303 which purports to authorize an appointed state level board, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, to remove the members of a local groundwater district and call a new election to replace the board.

Sec. 36.303. ACTION BY COMMISSION. (a) If Section 36.108, 36.301, or 36.302(f) applies, the commission, after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 2001, Government Code, shall take action the commission considers appropriate, including:
(1) issuing an order requiring the district to take certain actions or to refrain from taking certain actions;
(2) dissolving the board in accordance with Sections 36.305 and 36.307 and calling an election for the purpose of electing a new board;
(3) requesting the attorney general to bring suit for the appointment of a receiver to collect the assets and carry on the business of the groundwater conservation district; or
(4) dissolving the district in accordance with Sections 36.304, 36.305, and 36.308.
(b) In addition to actions identified under Subsection (a), the commission may recommend to the legislature, based upon the report required by Section 35.018, actions the commission deems necessary to accomplish comprehensive management in the district.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1010, Sec. 4.36, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 966, Sec. 2.56, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Note that Chapter 2001, Government Code, mentioned above, is the Administrative Procedure Act.

In other words, 36.303 claims it can, again by administrative procedure, centrally control the local district, and if the local district resists, “dissolve” the board.

In other words, a board that was elected by the voters to represent the voters that it taxes can be “dissolved” if the board does not represent the Texas Natural Resources Commission, an appointed board that pays no taxes and is not accountable to the voters who are taxed in the district.

And where does the issue get litigated? In the kangaroo court system according to Chapter 2001, Government Code, set up by the Administrative State in Austin, Travis County, Texas that likes to tell the Administrative Law Judges that the Constitution limits nothing in the administrative system.

Taxation without representation is not legal by any stretch of the imagination. So, who would have ever thought that the Administrative State would have gone this far? To keep it from violating other Constitutional limitations must we proactively sue in local district court to enjoin the Administrative State from violating a list of remaining Constitutional limitations? Does the Constitution mean nothing without such judicial action? If the Administrative State has no limits, how many more of our federally protected civil human rights can it eliminate? It appears that the current state of administrative law says that the Administrative State can assume control of any property, private or otherwise, wheresoever located in the state, whenever the Administrative State gets around to centrally controlling the whole Texas economy the way Karl Marx and others of his ilk such as Stalin and Hitler envisioned it.

And it seems to me that the whole mess violates Jones v. Ross 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943) holding that “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” I also add that our Constitution cannot be altered by long-ago discredited notions of economic central control that work no where in the world except to create subhuman misery and enslavement.

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today’s administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share