Don't Celebrate What You Ignore

 I am old enough to remember the 200th anniversary of our country's birth. In 1976, the focus was on America and her achievements and not blurred with celebrating the birthday of a clown. This year, it is difficult to get in the "mood". 

We have a Supreme Court that has proven itself a political tool of a hack. They have no direction and no standing. The Constitution is interpreted both as original (the intent of the framers at the time it was written) and living  (adapts to changing societal values, morals, and historical contexts over time), based solely on political intent. To keep this succinct, I will give you one of each.

Original: How the Supreme Court decided a federal law stripping firearm rights from regular marijuana users violated the Second Amendment. They looked at the founding era (1791) that showed there were no laws categorically disarming people for using substances like marijuana in their off hours.

Living: How the Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizures) when it came to geofence warrants in Chatrie v. United States. Geofence warrants are when police don't have a specific suspect, so they ask a company like Google to give them location data of EVERY SINGLE smartphone that was near a crime scene during a specific timeframe. They considered the smartphone as a modern-day extension of our "papers and effects", thus an adaptation based on changes over time.

The Supreme Court's job is to resolve conflicts (the final arbiter when lower courts disagree on how to interpret the law - making sure it is interpreted the same way across the country), settle large-scale disputes (acting as neutral ground for legal battles between states or involving foreign diplomats), and to keep the government in check (ensuring that neither the Congress nor the President exceeds the  boundaries of power set by the Constitution).

Where they fail in interpreting the Constitution correctly: I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but this is not that difficult. For example, when Justice Neil Gorsuch in Trump v. United States argued that the Executive Branch should have a similar protection to that which the Legislative Branch has in the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), granting him "immunity" for all "official acts" (What exactly ARE those official acts? Given up to interpretation, of course). He was INFERRING something that was not there. And if it was SUPPOSED to be there, the founders would have SPECIFICALLY put it there.

And why did he not interpret the Constitution correctly? Because apparently he NEVER READ the "preamble" to the Constitution, commonly referred to as "The Declaration of Independence". You want to know WHY they didn't grant the Executive Branch said immunity? Because they specifically stated that they did not want a "king" - a unitary that had absolute power to do whatever he wanted, not needing the approval or oversight for his actions.

So, on this 250th anniversary, when you are cheering the UFC fighters on the White House lawn, and skipping rocks on the green reflecting pool, and admiring the gold appliques super-glued to the walls of the Oval Office, don't forget that this is not just the anniversary of our country's birth, but a reminder that we shook off the shackles of a tyrant once.

Don't forget history, or we are doomed to repeat it.

-jp

©Emittravel 2026

What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine

As I mentioned in my last post, my wife and I spent a lot of time enjoying the National Parks in the state of Utah while on vacation. Normally when we are on drives, we listen to a playlist of podcasts consisting of old and current episodes of Coverville, East Meets West, and Cracked. This gives us a nice variety.

Being that we were gone for more than two weeks, many of the podcasts we listen to on our own were piling up. Being rather anal myself, I listen to all of my podcasts in the order they come out, and do not miss an episode. As for my wife, she listens to hers as to whatever is current, and listens to older ones if she has time. So, in order to give us a bit of variety, my wife suggested we listen to some of the podcasts from my queue (No guys, you can’t have her. She’s all mine!).

One of the episodes we listened to was from the Cato Daily Podcast. Now, Cato is a libertarian (small “L”) think tank that covers a variety of topics with informative discussions. Or, as the site describes it, "The Cato Daily Podcast allows Cato Institute scholars and other commenters to discuss relevant news and libertarian thought in a conversational, informal manner." (Yeah, that's better.)

The episode that got my attention was called, “A Weak Defense of Property Rights at the Supreme Court” and is described as, “The Supreme Court’s Murr decision may leave many future property owners in the lurch when local and state governments decide to change laws governing property.” I’ve provided a link so that you can listen to it: https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/weak-defense-property-rights-supreme-court

Before your eyes glaze over and you stop reading, let me remind you of the title of this particular blog post: “What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine”.

In all of the different articles I’ve read and all of the podcasts I’ve listened to on the subject of property, not one has looked at it from this perspective: According to those in government, “What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine”.

According to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Do you see what it does NOT say? “...that among these are Life, Liberty, and Property.”

According to the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 1774:

“That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:

1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.”

On July 4, 1776 (almost two years after the above), Congress approved the final draft of the Declaration of Independence (which was not signed until August 2, 1776).

Somewhere between October 1774 and July 1776, the clearly lifted phrase changed “property” to “the pursuit of Happiness”. Why?

There is much speculation from different historians, but what is clearly evident, is that those who set up our government did not consider property (outside of their own - most were wealthy land owners) to be a right of the people.

In other words, in the eyes of the government, you do not own anything. They do.

“Wait there, J.P., I own my house.”

Do you? First off, most don’t “own” their house. They have a long-term rental agreement with a bank. But even if you have paid off your mortgage in full, you do NOT own your home. You want proof? Stop paying your property taxes - or your income taxes. They will TAKE it from you. You pay the government “rent” (via taxes) in order to live in that home. You stop paying your rent, they will evict you and take it from you.

“Okay, maybe my home. But I own my car.”

Really? If you don’t purchase a license plate (or tags), or in many states, don’t have car insurance, you cannot drive the vehicle. And most cities have ordinances that state that you cannot have a vehicle that cannot be moved sitting on your property over a certain period of time. If so, it can be taken from you. So, as far as it being a vehicle of transportation that you own, without said taxes and fees paid, you do not have a vehicle of transportation. You pay for the right to have it.

“Okay, what about my X-Box? I own that, don’t I?”

Well, you have to consider the following proverb: What you own can be used to pay what you owe. If you stop paying “rent” (a.k.a “taxes”), the government can take what you own to pay what you owe. That includes your X-Box.

Even in death you can’t “take it with you”. Not because you can’t drive a U-Haul to heaven (because you can't), but because the government has a right to tax what you own. This is called an estate tax and is simply defined as a tax levied on the net value of the estate of a deceased person before distribution to the heirs.

Not only did you pay taxes when you made money. Not only did you pay taxes when you bought something with that money. You have to pay taxes AGAIN on the net value of what you have when you die before your kids have any right to it.

Why? Because, in the government's eyes, you DON’T OWN ANYTHING. It all belongs to them anyway.

Even the interest you earn can be subject to taxation.

So, when you hear a politician say that a tax cut would be taking income from the government, you’ll understand that they think that a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

But don’t worry. You have the right to pursue happiness. As long as it does not include property ownership.

Me? Oh, I’m Happy!

© Emittravel 2017