Tag Archives: constitution

This was the week that was in the death of the Constitution

Summary: What a wonderful week, bringing to even the most obtuse of Americans unmistakable evidence of our government’s growing power. These incidents are insignificant in themselves, more of the endless scandals that titillated members of America’s outer  party (the proles don’t care about such things; the inner party knows their irrelevance). But they might give small pushes to help a few see the true state of America.

(1) The Tea Party discovered that the government will investigate even white conservatives! Watch their anti-reality screens glow as they deflect all evidence that it was routine low-level actions, not planned attack by the Black Pretender in the White House.

(2) Journalists discovered that the government has no friends, only subjects and targets. Even their supine support of the government — concealing secrets, spinning stories to their benefit, denying a voice to its opponents — gives them no immunity from government surveillance. Legal surveillance, due to the post-9/11 shredding of the 4th Amendment.

(3) During the five years posting warnings on the FM website, I have received many forms of replies saying Don’t worry; all is well. None say it in as few words as this tweet, which should be carved on the eventual memorial to the late great Constitution:

Continue reading

On this important date let’s remember the past and look forward to our future

Summary:  On this day in 1781 the America Republic was born in the midst of war. Here we review its evolution, and the latest stage — which looks like the largest step yet. At some point incremental steps create something new, something different.

Science Fiction Shows a Possible Future for America

“So this is how liberty dies. To thunderous applause.”
— Queen Padme in Revenge of the Sith (2005)


Evolution of the American Republic

On this day in 1781  the Republic version 1.0 was born, as Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation, making it the basis of the revolutionary government.

On 21 June 1788 version 2.0 of the Republic was born, as New Hampshire ratified the Constitution — replacing the Articles (in defiance of the Articles provisions for amendment).

On 9 April 1865 General Lee surrendered, ending the 4 year long birth throes of version 2.1 of the Republic.

On 2 September 1945 the Empire of Japan surrendered, ending the 12 year long birth throes of version 2.2 of the Republic.

On 11 September 2011 al Qaeda attacked America, giving Bush Jr the opportunity to initiate massive changes in US domestic and foreign policy. Ratified and expanded by Obama, these radically changed the course of America’s evolution from that of version 2.0. As with the previous transitions, the magnitude of this change will become obvious only slowly. This might be the largest transformation of all. My guess is that the result will be version 3.0 — a New America.

Versions 1.0, 2.0, and 2.1 had highly limited franchises — limiting the vote by property, race, and gender. Version 3.0 might also be a limited democracy. Perhaps very limited, such as a plutocracy or a high-tech version of a elite-controlled society.

The builders of the New America, and the applause

Continue reading

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings

Summary:  The Republic  is at war against an adaptive foe that seeks its destruction. Not al Qaeda, which might no longer exist in meaningful form, but internal foes seeking its overthrow. That they’re moving incrementally, small steps slowly growing larger with each success, only masks the boldness of their goals. It’s the quiet coup. Here we look at the latest chapter in the war, the most recent rip torn in the Constitution.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
— Written by Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its “Reply to the Governor” (11 November 1755).


As the America-that-Once-Was evolves into the quite different New America, the identity of those responsible becomes increasingly clear.  It’s us. Our disinterest in working the Founders’ machinery of self-government. Our passive acceptance of Empire and plutocracy. Saddest of all is our abandonment of America’s ideals, the end point of a thousand year-long struggle.

These things are all seen in our reaction to President Obama’s white paper granting himself powers not seen in Anglo-American history since the Stuart Kings. Limiting the Monarchs’ right of arbitrary arrest and punishment of their subjects took 450 years, from the first tentative agreement in Magna Carta (1215) to its achievement in the English Civil War (1641-1662).  Now, with our complaisance, Presidents Bush Jr and Obama have erased much of that progress.

Two provisions of Magna Carta deserve our attention today, a gift to us from the Barons of 13th century England.

38.  No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his “law”, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.  {This was replaced by improved legislation in 1863}

39.  No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised {deprived of land} or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.  {This remains in force for the people of England, but no longer in the USA}

Our ancestors spent much blood, sweat, and tears between that day at Runnymede and the meeting in 1878 at Philadelphia.  The liberties provided by the Constitution were won over those 30 generations, by the unruly Saxons and Normans of Medieval England — and the Founders, jealous of their liberties and willing to fight for them.  In the decade since 9-11 we’ve thoughtlessly thrown away political structures that took centuries to build.

The Constitution is just a “paper bullet of the brain”, with no power except to the degree it lives in our hearts.  That love appears to have died.

Continue reading

Let’s look at the Second Amendment, cutting through the myths and spin

Summary:  It’s the great oddity of the US that we order our society based on exegesis of an 18th century document, written in grammar no longer used with words whose meaning has often radically changed.  Instead of justice or logic, our judges have become like the mandarins of Imperial China — parsing the meaning of a document that no longer lives in any other meaningful sense.  In the 6th chapter of this series, we wade into the thickets to understand how this plays out over the corpse of the Constitution with respect to the second amendment.

Studying the Constiution

Studying the Constitution

Section I, article 8 (see analysis by the Congressional Research Service):

The Congress shall have power …

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment (see analysis by the Congressional Research Service):

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.

A quick history of the Second Amendment

From “Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment“, Dennis Baron (Prof Linguistics, U IL at Urbana-Champaign):

English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia. Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was upheld in 3 Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939 (Bogus 2000).

Continue reading

We’ve worked through all 5 stages of grief for the Republic. Now, on to The New America!

Summary:  As the Republic dies, its opponents become bolder.  They move from subtly working to undermine it, to outright advocacy of its overthrow.

“We’ve spawned a new race here … We’re a new nationality. We require a new nation.”
— Benjamin Franklin speaking at the Continental Congress, 7 June 1776 (in the film 1776)


Perhaps we’ve become a new race, so that the America-that-once-was no longer suits us.
Perhaps we require a New America.


  1. Five stages of grieving for the Republic
  2. A new Republic for a plutocracy
  3. A Marine speaks against the Constitution
  4. For More Information

(1)  Five stages of grieving for the Republic

Grief is the price we pay for love.  Kubler-Ross describes grief as psychological process of adjustment consisting of five stages (for more on the theories of Kuber-Ross see Changing Minds and Wikipedia):

  1. Shock & Denial:  Initial paralysis at hearing the bad news:  trying to avoid the inevitable.
  2. Anger:  Frustrated outpouring of bottled-up emotion.
  3. Bargaining:  Seeking in vain for a way out.
  4. Depression:  Final realization of the inevitable.
  5. Testing and Acceptance:  Seeking realistic solutions; finally finding a way forward.

In March 2011 I wrote:

Our constitutional Republic has died (or details see this post of July 4, 2006), and each of us feels the loss in some way (this accounts for the low morale seen in public opinion polls).  We have moved with little fuss through stage one.  What comes next?  We’re sheep (the Republic died from our passivity and ignorance).  The ovine {of sheep} grief process differs from that of men and women.  Perhaps we will move directly to step five.

Less than a year has passed and we have evidence that my guess was correct.  It’s become routine to advocate overthrow of the Constitution and the Republic. Here are two examples.

(2) A new Republic for a plutocracy

Our first exhibit is a law professor who explains that the Constitution has died, as we’re too weak to amend it.  He’s less explicit about what comes next, but filling in those blanks takes little imagination.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution“, Louis Michael Seidman, op-ed in the New York Times, 30 December 2012

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Continue reading

Today’s open thread about the death of the Constitution. Tell us your story.

Summary:  A quick look at our government’s latest blows on the Constitution, kicking the corpse.  Please post your reactions to this news, and how the people you know see the Republic’s death.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
— Attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Since 4 July 2006 I have warned that the Republic was dying, although I said we could still save it. Until this year the most common responses in comments were a combination of ridicule and disagreement. But the stream of grim news has eroded away people’s faith in the Republic’s strong foundations, and the comments have grown darker.

This year the evidence about the Constitution’s death has flowed in like the tide. Look at this week’s news, and despair for the Republic:

Our reaction to this news, like the many similar stories before these, provides the strongest evidence not just that the Republic lies near death — but that it dies of neglect.  Our neglect. We’ve abandoned it, as the love of liberty and self-government no longer resides in our hearts, minds, and souls.

Today let’s hear your testimony. If you have not yet done so, please read those two articles. Tell us your reaction. How did you feel after doing so?  What will you do now? How do those around you react to this news — friends, relatives, coworkers, fellow parishioners?

Continue reading

The Founders talk to us about guns for a well-regulated militia

Summary:  The debate about the right to bear arms is a black comedy. It takes place amidst casualties like that of a war, the names of the annual crop of the dead endlessly scrolling by into the dustbin of history. The guns supposedly defending our liberty remain quiet while we throw away our rights. The arguments supporting an expansive interpretation are bolstered by an impressive array of fake quotes from our history. It’s a fine demonstration of American politics at the end of the Second Republic.

Assault deaths per 100k in US & our peers. Guess which line is the USA?

The graph is by Kieran Healy. Click to enlarge. The source is in section 4.


  1. About the Second Amendment
  2. Alexander Hamilton speaks to us
  3. Fake advice from Thomas Jefferson
  4. More information about guns in America – pro-gun control
  5. And for the other side of the debate …
  6. About our eroding rights. One by one we throw them away.

(1)  About the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment:

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.

From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School

The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.

Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints.

(2)  Alexander Hamilton speaks to us

Alexander Hamilton clearly sides with with “states’ rights” theory in Federalist Paper No. 29: “Concerning the Militia“, published in The Daily Advertiser, 10 January 1788 — Capitals in the original. Excerpt:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness.

Continue reading