Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Friday, November 17, 2017

Practical Efficiency and the Death of the US

Today, we see that justice is completely coopted by politics, a condition no republic can tolerate, but that is very apparent, even necessary, in a democracy. Is this why the leftists continue to insist that America is a "democracy?" It is not, but the United States is constantly referred to by senators and representatives as such.

A republic depends on the deliberation of competent individuals to write whatever laws are called for by the conditions of society, not at the whim of the mob. A democracy is, by definition, a mob demanding laws by popular whim, it is a very unruly and dangerous thing.

This is what America suffers from today. Popular television shows presented as "the news" stir up public outrage at some condition, true or not (most often untrue), but sensational and lending itself to irrational and emotional law-making. That impulse is supposed to be tempered by rational and deliberate individuals elected by those in their community and knowledgeable of their character and ability to be discerning.

Perhaps, when we had a less populous nation, a smaller nation (in size), that was possible, but then a representative was only initially supposed to represent 30,000 people (the size of a small city) (Art. I, Section 2, 3rd Clause), not the millions that they represent today, because the congress decided that they would cap the number of representatives in order to maintain the congress at the current size (435) under the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Typically, when the Constitution is altered, it requires an amendment with all of its necessary encumbrances. In effect, this congressional sleight of hand meant that the federal government has instituted taxation without representation for the past 88 years (more than that actually, but at least that as a matter of law) against 680,000 people in every congressional district. This has led to all manner of gerrymandering and other political tricks to ensure that all of the people are not heard from and that those representatives are as unknown to the average person as a television star.

And yet, the people are called upon to make this decision on who should represent them. This is not possible. In a population of 30,000 it is likely that one might encounter their representative at some point, in some manner during the normal course of life, but not when one representative supposedly represents the interests of 710,000 people.

This lack of representation has led to the tendency of the government to function as a democracy rather than a republic, hence a great deal of our problems as a nation. The unconstitutional actions of the congress has led to a rash of denials of individual rights that, along with judicial rulings, combine to rewrite the Constitution along a populist bent without the formality that should accompany that act. It has restricted the "diversity" it was supposed to promote, by diluting the voices of smaller communities as they are lost among the larger population centers.

It was roughly this time in history (1910 to 1940) that so much of what America WAS was lost as Woodrow Wilson's vision of an effective and efficient federal government, regardless of legality, began to take hold and revolutionize politics.

If you combine this set of circumstances and abuses with the result of them, we find ourselves in the 21st Century with an absolutely corrupt and illegal government that cannot punish political criminals no matter how arrogantly and openly they commit their crimes. The people are unable to express their views in congress with the efficiency that was intended. And, when the government finds it expedient to abolish the Second Amendment with the practical efficiency that they chose to enact the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, it must be the moment that the people decide to "alter or abolish" it, because without the Second Amendment only the absolute destruction of the concept of a republic can be envisioned by those in congress. One might argue that without the Second Amendment it would have long since taken place.

14 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed. Donald Livingston edited a book that explains the loss of the representative republic due to the impossi8blity of that republic to exist as large as the country has become. This cannot be resolved. If at first you don't secede try, try again. the only question is can we separate without another massive bloody war. It is not going well for Catalonia so prepare for the worst.

    https://mises.org/library/rethinking-american-union

    Sawman

    ReplyDelete
  3. While the nihilist comment above is a bit brutal it does reflect the reality of some but faulting TL for writing obviously "mere words" it is all that the poster does too, and much less thoughtful words at that.
    What are we to do other than to write and speak to get our fellow citizens and neighbors aroused to the condition and remedies to our condition?
    While some have been attacked and murdered by the evil Feral forces of government, anything but lawful self defense is pure folly at this point. The tide is turning and the sides are forming more clearly politically and socially.
    Impatience is not a virtue at this point, so far. That could change tommorrow depending upon events and provocations by others. Calmly looking evil in the eye without flinching and without being provoked into action too soon requires discernment and determination.
    TL does a good job at his craft, imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  4. The comment I was refering to has been removed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GenEarly, the comment was deleted, because it was full of name-calling and ridiculous hypocrisy by someone who does nothing. He is known for this behavior on this and other blogs and it adds nothing to the discussion, it is just a vile, stupid cry for attention. Yes, I have been through it before.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  5. Mr. Davis in quotations, comments follow.

    "That impulse is supposed to be tempered by rational and deliberate individuals elected by those in their community and knowledgeable of their character and ability to be discerning."

    And there Mr. Davis' argument falls flat on its face. Assuming Mr. Davis actually thought through his desired Utopian ratio of representation, Congress today would number about 10,000 "representatives" (excluding the Senate -- which is stuck at two per State; and the only thing they are supposed to represent is their State, but they are now publicly elected so we know how that works out).

    "...Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929."

    Sorry, Mr. Davis, but the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 is Constitutional in that it is now part of the Constitution as are all laws passed by Congress that are not struck down by the Nine Headed Retard. The Constitution is supposed to be "The Rule of Law." right? The simple fact is that the Constitution is all (repeat, all) laws (and by default all regulations deriving therefrom) enacted, not abrogated by SCOTUS, by The Peoples' "representatives." Just because it is not scribbled on the decaying ink-smeared foolscap in the Smithsonian does not mean it is not Constitutional.

    “The people are unable to express their views in congress with the efficiency that was intended.”

    It was never intended that The People would be able to “express their views in Congress.” Precluding The People to “express their views in Congress” was and is the whole point of a Republic.

    “...it must be the moment that the people decide to "alter or abolish" it...”

    That is Unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about the “right” of The People to alter or abolish the government. Really, Mr. Davis, you must read your Locke.

    “...because without the Second Amendment only the absolute destruction of the concept of a republic can be envisioned by those in congress.”

    Article I, section 8: “...suppress Insurrections....” The purpose of the militia is to defend the system.

    And finally:

    “One might argue that without the Second Amendment it would have long since taken place.”

    I will repeat here a question I asked recently; “Will somebody please explain to me how 2A prevented this country from becoming a Communist shit hole?”

    S//

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Barry, as is typical, you present the statist point of view. It is not part of the Constitution simply by becoming a law. In order to change the Constitution as written requires an amendment. The whole point is that the government has been acting outside of the law for a long time on a number of issues. That no one cares, doesn't mean it is legal, but rather practical.

      The people speak through their representatives, when the representatives are "of the people" which you can achieve at 30,000 and not at 710,000. That was the point of the post. Please pay attention.

      The people, at all times, are in their rights to alter or abolish, whether in the document or not. This is a natural right and exercised all over the world many times a decade, most recently in Spain. All governments function by the will of the people, but it takes a collective will to alter or abolish.

      Thank you so much for your condescension, but the reason I have not written much about the Constitution of late is because it is useless. Has always been useless, but I have previously written about it to show others that reality by showing how often and in what ways it is continually violated.

      But, you aren't really going to tell me on one hand that the Constitution is useless and use it as a justification on the other hand are you?

      Delete
    2. Barry,

      So, your argument is the Comstitution is dead. Correct ? If the scum of CON-gress can implement a law and the black-robed bastards of SCOTUS do not challenge said usurption, then in all actuality, the CON-stitution is DEAD. Should that be your argument I would agree with you. On the other hand, if you make argument that fedgov can "amend" the CON-stitution by conjuring up any ol' law they deem applicable, to include regulations created by unelected bureaucrats, then I would believe you are no less deserving of a short rope and a tall tree yourself than the 535 + 9 and every head of every three-letter, fedgov, alphabet agency.

      Just as you claim the country was not created as a Christian nation, you appear to be, once again, blowing smoke up the asses of anyone willing to accept your inane remarks as legitimate.

      BTW....don't forget you got tossed out of the Army's social justice school for boys and ahem...."girls", on the Hudson, for academic failure. Most everything I've ever read by you is suspect. To include this latest CON-stitution synopsis you provide. Of course I may be wrong in my latest analysis of your self-aggrandizing rhetoric.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM ANONYMOUS who has tried three times to comment, but I was getting the emails even though the comment didn't post. Some BLOGGER glitch. So, here it is.


      Mr. Barry what communist shitholes have you visited if any? I have been to some and none I have seen had availability of Bibles or weapons. We might be headed that way but the only reason we are not there is the 2nd amendment.


      Delete
  6. Some of you are not being censored, I am getting your comments in my inbox, but they are not showing up on the blog. I don't know why, because I would like to reply to some of these comments, but if they are not on the blog, I can't. It is a glitch of Blogger somewhere.

    As for those I DO censor, it is not the person, but the message. If it is your intent to simply come here and call names with no substance to your comment and does nothing but fill this space up with nonsense and insults, it destroys the atmosphere of debate I want to encourage. I did not censor Barry, because at least he made some intelligent arguments instead of temper tantrums and hissy fits.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.