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

It Ain't Illegal If I Don't Get Caught

What do the following words have in common:

Gay
Terrible
Ejaculate
Bad
Sick
Congressman

Each of the above originally had a different meaning/usage than it does today. "Gay" used to mean "happy", "terrible" used to mean "awe inspiring", and "ejaculate" meant "exclaim". You get the idea.

The title of this post is an expression that basically means, "if a law is not enforced, it isn't a law". Ever catch someone go through a red traffic light and don't get stopped? Did they break the law? Sure they did. But, since it wasn't enforced, it "really" wasn't broken was it? Or, if you read my last post, "Quit Playing With Yourself and Drive!!", driving while on your cellphone is not really illegal either - if it isn't enforced.

There is another level that I think needs addressed: If a law does not apply equally, it is not a law.

Every couple of years I read through the Federalist Papers. Not an exciting read, but worthwhile nonetheless. In Federalist LVII "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many", I read the following:

"If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature, as well as on the People, the People will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty."

The argument was that if the Legislature were to make laws that did not apply to themselves, the people would not stand for it. Sorry to say that that turned out to be false.

There are many laws that Congress has passed that they have exempted themselves from. Here are a few:

"Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970" - this applies to "any person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees". Under the acts definitions, the term employer "does not include the United States" - which means Congress. Too bad if you get hurt on the job.

"Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" - this provides a statutory right of access to a wide range of government information to allow citizens to be informed of government affairs. The House and Senate stand by certain "privileges" that have roots in the Constitution, which allows them to not have to disclose certain things to the public.

"18 U.S. Code 208" - The principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees - prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking any official action on something that would provide personal financial gain. This does NOT apply to any elected officials of the Federal Government - so Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges are exempt. Since Martha Stewart was not one of the above, she went to jail for insider trading.

(The above examples were pulled from https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm)

Reminds me of the bonehead from "Lethal Weapon II" shouting "Diplomatic immunity" whenever he broke the law.

Where am I going with all of this? According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

If you apply privileges of royalty onto an existing title, doesn't that equal the granting of a title of nobility?

Calling someone "Congressman" - with all of their privileges and exemptions - like "gay", "terrible", and "ejaculate" - no longer fits the original definition and should be held accountable.

©Emittravel 2019

Stuff My Brain Says #80

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." 

The above is the Oath of Enlistment that I affirmed when I joined the U.S. Navy back in 1984. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The above is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The same Constitution that I swore to support and defend.

Recently, groups of white supremacists, Nazis, and those who stand against white supremacists and Nazis, have held marches and protests. Now, as a person who stands for the rights expressed in the U.S. Constitution, I want to say that I support the RIGHT for those to speak their minds. That does NOT mean that I agree with or support their views. It means that I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

As a refresher, the First Amendment does not establish the rights of the people, but states the limitations of the government ("Congress shall make no law..."). 

According to the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law that would prohibit the right of the people to peaceably assemble. 

PEACEABLY assemble.

When an assembly of people turn violent they no longer have the right to assemble. That does not mean that if you are being violent AS a "hate group" or being violent AGAINST a "hate group", YOU are in the wrong. 

When you peaceably assemble you CANNOT throw stones, bricks, or punches. You CANNOT destroy public or private property (which includes statues and monuments - there are civil and legal ways to remove them). In other words, you have the right to assemble in a non-violent way. 

You may hate white supremacists and Nazis. That is your right. And, as a white supremacist and/or Nazis you may hate those who protest against you. But NEITHER group has the right to cause harm to the other. At that point you fall dangerously close to being a domestic enemy - and there is a large number of folks who swore to support and defend the Constitution against you.

Remember: You have the right to assemble peaceably and you have the right to speak freely. You do NOT have the right to be heard. 

© Emittravel 2017