Category Archives: Supreme Court

Like the 17th Amendment? You will love Ted Cruz’s plan for the Supreme Court, then!

Yes, it is that simple. Ted Cruz, presumably in an effort to romance the disenchanted members of his “base” following two ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), has forwarded an idea that is only outdone in its folly by the 17th Amendment we have come to know and resent. If not an attempt at romance, it serves as evidence of his inability to understand the Constitution and history.

Some might ask: “what is the 17th Amendment and why was it bad?” Well, the 17th Amendment transformed the structure of the government one step closer to the mob rule that our founders knew quite well and feared rather adamantly. It took the make-up of the Senate from being chosen by the legislatures of the several states and placed it into the hands of the populace in each state. While to many this may sound appealing, there was a very specific reason such a structure existed.

First, the Senate was to represent the state’s themselves, which is why the breakdown of Senate representation is equal amongst the states. The people as individuals, and within districts, had representation in the House of Representatives; however, to balance the potential for popular whim to dominant the law, the Senate was to represent the interests of the states directly. This structured created an overlapping, but disparate constituency structure that would frustrate attempts of any “factions” to exert control over another group of citizens.

The shift in structure by the 17th Amendment washed away a significant protection of the rule of law and preservation of the rights of individuals by subjecting all of Congress to popular impulse. With the presidency already subject to popular impulse, now two full branches of government represent the mob rule idea that is/was democracy and began to erode at the foundations of liberty that are established in limited government.

If Ted Cruz gets his way, the final branch of the federal government will become but an additional conduit for popular opinion which can sway to and fro like a weak sapling in a hurricane. Justices will serve at the whim of any overbearing majority which can establish itself, even temporarily. The Constitution will be relegated to the dustbin of history and rights will no longer be considered inherent nor God given; instead they will only exist until they are no longer convenient.

Don’t believe me when I say it would be (and would have been) catastrophic? I have attached a table below (click on Cruz Table in green) that lists the current members of the Court and their appointment info, winning president at their first retention vote (based on Cruz’s rule of second national election following appointment), likelihood of dismissal that first time, and subsequent retention years.

Any trust I had in Cruz’s ability to be president dissipated when I heard him make this suggestion. My skepticism was affirmed when I made the table. Clearly he lacks historical understanding of the make-up of the Court by the founders or he was so anxious to be everyone’s knight in shining armor and surrounds himself with yes-men to such a great extent that nobody caught this. Either way, I intend to distance myself from him as time moves forward.
Cruz Table

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The great lie that birth control has become somehow illegal

        An interesting, although not surprising, situation has developed in the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. whereas liberal-socialists have entered a new and even more irrational line of propaganda.  In short, the Supreme Court determined that closely held businesses cannot be forced to pay for coverage which includes post-fertilization birth control (e.g. the morning after pill) under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Instead of engaging in any kind of honest assessment of the outcome of the case, the socialists have launched a campaign wrought with lies in an attempt to make the mindless populace believe women’s birth control has all the sudden become either illegal or under the direct control of employers.

          Many times the propaganda machine will only exaggerate reality (albeit in a fantastic way); however, they have reached a new low in creating a pseudo-reality which is not remotely representative of fact.  Somehow the idea that if someone else wishes to not pay for something, people have been “denied access” to it is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.  That is what this is all about.  It is not whether an employer is controlling health decisions (as they are clearly not); it is whether people should be able to coerce others to pay for (or provide) items they wish to consume.  The only access to anything being denied is unfettered access to an employer’s bank account.  Let me attempt to make this as clear as possible:  “you do not have the right to other people’s stuff!”  This would be called theft and it is illegal for a good reason.  Political plunder is no less immoral than piracy, gang activity, or white collar crime.

          This brings to mind a passage written by Frederic Bastiat in The Law:

“…Unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions.  And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters.  The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.  The law has been used to destroy its own objective:  It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights [life, liberty, and property] which its real purpose was to respect.  The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others.  It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder…The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes:  stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

         Both of those reasons are at play here.  “Stupid greed” compels people to feel entitled to something which they have no rightful basis for coercing out of others; in this case some forms of post-conception birth control.  “False philanthropy” drives those who encourage this idiocy (politicians) and those who support such claims.

          Additionally, we seem to ignore the reality that pregnancy is not some sort of mystery.  While there seems to be little consensus on when, precisely, humans became specifically aware that sex was the cause of pregnancy, it does seem to be rather clear that humans have known for a very, very long time (like several thousand years at least).  Therefore, I would argue that since pregnancy is totally avoidable for anyone who cannot afford birth control (which also means they cannot afford children, by the way) then the argument that birth control must be supplied or people will get pregnant only is evidence that there are a significant amount of stupid people.  These people’s primary problem, particularly those who are adults, is not a lack of birth control; it is instead the inability to compare the costs of a condom to the cost of a child.  Of course, with the nanny state and its willingness to engage in theft from one citizen to buy votes…hmmm, I mean help others; I guess kids really can be profitable and perhaps they have done the math.