The post below was written in 2016. I had just read a book that, amazingly, still rests on my shelf, called Everything You Know About the Constitution is Wrong, by a man calling himself Edward James Snowden. I normally do not recommend what others should read or watch or think. It is up to you.
Last night comments were appearing on the nature of our Constitution, and I remembered this book. It had impacted me. There are many threads within the book that Snowden writes well about, but the one that caught my eye most when I read it was the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868. It is long and wordy, and I will reprint here only the pertinent parts of the first clause:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Honestly, that sounds like overstating the obvious along with virtue signalling. The country had just emerged from a bloody Civil War, blacks were emancipated, so the ground was ripe to make major substantial changes in our laws. Prior to this amendment, non-black people were citizens of the various states, and none (except slaves) could be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Blacks were no longer slaves. Why restate? It appears as though the purpose was to make everyone a subject of the Federal Government rather than any state.
The answer given by Snowden is that it was an enormous power grab, and that thereafter the states would be subordinate to the Federal Government. It’s been so long that way now that we naturally think that the Supreme Court can rule on any issue, legislate, appoint a president, and overturn any law written at any level. None of that was the case before 1868. States were sovereign, boundaries existed, and the Supreme Court existed to protect the citizenry from legislative overreach. It could strike down laws at the federal level in whole, but not partially, and if a law passed muster, it could step back and do nothing.
I made a comment to this effect last night, and in response this morning received a comment from Darin linking us to this essay by Legalman making the same points, only longer and better. We have come so far, so much of our history has been wiped out or rewritten. Just know that the way we live, the things we know, are not the way were meant to live or be given to know.
Below is my original post on this subject.
Again, I am diverted, and trust me, my list of false leaders is enough material to write for the coming decade. Bernie Sanders is perhaps the least offensive of a large cast of characters.
A certain commenter, when backed into a corner and on his way toward the exit, will usually hit me with “Well, what’s your solution, Toke?” The answer is not to his liking, that when a patient has a cancer removed, he does not ask the doctor to replace it with another cancer just to feel whole. A system as corrupt as ours is beyond repair; power is so centralized and people are so fragmented by the power of TV that there’s no hope of “fixing” anything,
But there is a way out. I finished the book “Everything You Know About the Constitution is Wrong” by Edward James Snowden yesterday. Again, this Snowden is not to be confused with the fake whistle blower supposedly hiding out in Russia. He is some other guy. I have had a hard time running this guy down, but I have heard him interviewed (which is why I ordered the book), so I know he is real. The “about the author” page in the book is misdirection. He does not want to be known.
But the guy is a good writer, and has real depth, which is why I took my time, reading only a few pages at a time. His message is that our Constitution is a dead letter, and is since passage of the 14th Amendment internally contradictory.
For instance, while the 14th was ostensibly put in place to protect newly-freed slaves, of the 150 or so cases that came before the Supreme Court in the ensuing quarter century that invoked the 14th, only five or so involved freed slaves. The rest had to do with the business class trying to establish personhood for corporations, which they accomplished in 1886 via Santa Cara versus Southern Pacific Railway, (read down in link to Section 4.1) and by means of subterfuge.
The rest is history, hidden of course.
Snowden makes it clear that tyranny is always present and asserts itself like a magnet. The original Constitution was carefully crafted to prevent tyranny, but the authors knew the difficulties. After an exhaustive Civil War, where the original ideas of the Constitution had to be trashed to preserve the union, the door was opened, and within a generation the Constitution was dead. Today we have no left, no right, only corporate imperialism, and a country where elected officials are mere puppets to hidden power.
But there is a way out, and oddly enough, that way is incorporated in the original document – we have in place remnants of the original structure in the form of state governments. Of course these days they perform perfunctory duties like issuance of drivers licenses and management of fake elections. But in the original document, states are empowered to meet to amend or even replace the Constitution.
If 3/4 of our states agree on a new document, it is done, and done without permission or oversight of the Federal Government. It is possible, and immensely challenging. It would be a battle to the death with the oligarchs, but a battle worth fighting, as what we have now is a half-sunken ship.
We need escape to a new vessel
22 thoughts on “A glimmer of hope”
There is a way out but only with a large well organized group leading the charge that cannot be infiltrated. Good reads on the Legalman page especially in the comment section. Hasn’t been updated in awhile and his twitter is gone, is he on another webpage?
No more to offer. The photos and captions in the post are off-putting, but his responses to comments seem sincere. The fact that I could not run down the author of the book without being overwhelmed by the guy pretending to be holed up in the Moscow airport is a red flag as well. I do not know what to make of it. I do know that the past is perception management and that recorded history is bunk. We are left to our own brains and devices.,
Greg: “…only with a large well organized group leading the charge that cannot be infiltrated.”
Mark: “We are left to our own brains and devices.”
Wifey and I were discussing this yesterday. What Greg suggests is true – but so far impossible, as the bait of filthy lucre pervades. Useful idiots abound. What Mark states is true as well – but have you checked in to the mental capacity of ‘your fellow man’ lately? Horrifying.
After reading the [recent] post, many old things over the years and the linked doc, it still seems true (as many have stated): there is no rule of law for the peons.
I see no congenial way out. Violence has its place – either inch-by-inch by human, or maybe a cleansing from the galactic forces.
The peons ARE the law… That is, what they believe in their hearts to be true and just is more powerful, in the long run (and often short run), than whatever the petty tyrants say is “the law.” The legalistic law is only relevant inasmuch as it confuses and propagandizes said peons.
As an example, in my small circle, many “conservatives” felt fearful or cautious about covid. But they all said they supported anyone’s right to refuse masking or vax mandates. Whatever their personal choice. Liberals, meanwhile, were much more squishy on this point. Some were in that middle ground that could go either way, but some were zealots for mandates and trampling individual rights.
You cannot impose tyrannical laws if enough “peons” see them as such, and especially if they’re firm and passionate in their convictions. This is why the Constitution is useful – it’s an eloquent statement in defense of many basic individual rights, and powerful propaganda for “our side.”
If you’re “beyond it” like most POM readers, fine, but tearing it down is just a fun parlor game for philosophers. Among regular people you’re just shooting yourself in the foot to throw away its protections (or its propaganda value.) Most people aren’t going to leave the cave.
Note with Covid they threw the first Amendment out the window. No one objected, every governor went along with it, every state attorney general.
Can you remind me what instance you’re thinking of? It was likely something that cost them legitimacy among conservatives, at least. That may be all part of the master plan, long game, 3-D chess, but governments do (at least currently) still rely on public opinion and require some semblance of legitimacy to get buy-in. Clearly the liberals are rabid true believers in the government’s legitimacy and expertise, but half the country has been enormously disillusioned by the whole covid debacle. Even the conservatives who masked or got vaxxed, imo, have in retrospect regretted much of that, and going forward are much more distrustful. That is more powerful, that public sentiment, than any court ruling or technical truth about “the law” – except insofar as those rulings shape public opinion.
I’m not sure I am catching your meaning here … here’s an interesting detail, Montana was exceptionally harsh on people, a Stalag 13. When elections rolled around in 2020, every single Democrat lost, by wide margins, so bad that a well-known not very nice Democratic blogger, Don Pogreba, moved to Hawaii! I mean, Hawaii was among the worst, so he felt like he was going home, I suppose.
And, I will have to check with Big Swede about this, as he still resides there, but as far as I know none of the elections results had anything to do with Covid! People just turned on the Democrats for no reason! No reason!
Half sunken Ship, Her rest to follow…Lest sunk in the mud.
If you go back to the home page there are many other articles, but they are older as well. He definitely has a unique style and I find him humorous. He is doing weekly Podcasts now… https://the-quash.captivate.fm/episodes
I am listening to him as we speak. I’ll put his podcasts in our links.
Snowden is not a real person but a media character made up in a computer. They use an actor occasionally but other than that, he’s not real and definitely not living in Russia. Did you all forget his broken glasses missing a half of the nose clip?
you may have missed this but the Georgia Guide Stones are gone. And Boris is gone too. And the Queen may be gone too soon. Is this the begining of the end?
Someone suggested to me that Snowden and Dr Andrew Kaufman look very much alike, so I did a face split. Sure enough, perfect alignment. Not only that, but out of each I got very sinister eyes. Do not know what to make of it, the alignment, not the eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not the famous Snowden, Barb.. unless I’m the one who’s confused
I said in the 2016 post that I new he was real because I saw him speak – YouTube? I do not recall. But searching for him is futile, all I get is the fake.
why did they fake the glasses? They use an actor of course but why delete the half of the nose clip? Nobody can wear glasses like this. It’s a marker. But they don’t do that anymore in the recent videos or pictures. Or at least not always. But that is not the point. They can show him with complete glasses anytime if they want. Interesting are the videos and pics where the nose clip is incomplete.
Someone suggested a few months ago that Snowden and Dr. Andrew Kaufman were lookalikes. Turns out so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note the sinister eyes..
you’re right. They look like twins. Well the eyes are different, the ears too, the eyebrows don’t match, ones nose is Semitic, the other ones straight, one is bald, the other one has full hair without any signs of baldness, but other than that…Come on Mark. They have nothing in common. Not even the glasses. As for Kaufman, it is hard to compare his face with others for he has a thick beard. Yo could better compare him to Osama BL.
I did not say they where twins. That is completely off point. Alignment of features, which is extremely rare, is all I see. Just as Charlie Sheen and Pierce Brosnan look exactly alike and are easily distinguishable, so too these two, from the same mold but of different parentage. It is a process I do not yet grasp. Take some time to find that alignment among all the prominent faces we see, you’ll at least be maybe possibly just a tad curious. I do wish you’d delve a bit more before jumping in with overbearing opinions.
Sinister? I read drug addled… both of them.
Speaking of sinister, drugs, Kaufman (and glimmering and potential alarm bells) . . .
This seems like a proper placeholder to remind readers of Kaufman’s patent (issued October 4, 2016) – a GPS sensor-enabled SMART wearable monitoring device for psychiatric inpatients and prison inmates (and additional populations): https://patents.justia.com/patent/9460262.
The system includes a monitoring device adapted to be worn above the neck of the at-risk individual, the monitoring device including a sensor adapted to monitor at least one physiological characteristic of the at-risk individual. The system further includes a first transmitter in communication with the sensor. The first transmitter is adapted to send data relating to the at least one physiological characteristic. The system further includes a base station including a first receiver and a second transmitter. The first receiver is adapted to receive the physiological characteristic data from the monitoring device, and the second transmitter is adapted to transmit an alert message. The system further includes an alert device including a second receiver to receive the alert message, and a signal generator adapted to generate an alert in the form of an audible, visual or tactile alarm. The system further includes a computer-readable medium and a processor coupled to the computer-readable medium. The processor is adapted to execute program instructions to analyze data from the sensor of the at least one monitoring device, determine if a sentinel event has begun or is occurring and, if so, initiate an alert to the alert device.
As used herein, the terms “at-risk individual” and “individual at an elevated risk of suicide” may be used interchangeably, and are intended to refer to a person who is likely to suffer from death or other physical bodily harm, such as through a sentinel event including for example, suicide, drug or medication use, including overdose or toxicity, panic attack, drug/alcohol withdrawal, stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, or heart attack. In one embodiment, an “at-risk individual” is one who is more likely than an average person to attempt suicide, and may include individuals who are kept in a custodial care setting, as defined below. In another embodiment, an “at-risk individual” may include a person who is more likely than an average person to suffer a heart attack or other heart problem due to that individual’s likelihood to engage in drugs, alcohol, or other medication, which may cause a cardiac, circulatory or respiratory problem due to its use, misuse, overdose or withdrawal. Further, in another embodiment, an “at-risk individual” may include a person who is more likely than an average person to suffer from severe panic attacks, thereby running the risk of endangering that individual’s body, including intense psychological distress that may be compared to suffering a heart attack. At-risk individuals may be those individuals who are likely to suffer from heart attack or stroke, such as elderly individuals.
As used herein, the term “custodial care setting” refers to an institution where individuals are kept under care and/or watch. Examples of custodial care settings include hospitals, psychiatric institutions, jails and prisons, juvenile detention centers, assisted living facilities, group homes, rehabilitation facilities (substance abuse and medical/physical), nursing home facilities, and the like. A custodial care setting is not necessarily limited to an institution in which an individual is kept against his or her will, and may include voluntary admission hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
As used herein, a “physiological characteristic” is a characteristic of an individual’s body that can be monitored, and may include, among other characteristics, a pulse, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, breathing rate, and perspiration levels. Other characteristics that may be monitored include blood pressure, tissue perfusion (amount of blood flow to specific tissue), urine output, EKG tracing, electroencephalography (EEG), body weight, exhaled CO2 levels, and central venous pressure.
In the world where three quarters of State legislatures had the will to strike down the 14th Amendment, the Senators and Representatives in DC would already have repealed its worst abuses in Federal law, don’t you think?