Skip to content

On The Death Of The Rule Of Law, Part I

30 June 2015 @ 20:41

This will be a short series of posts highlighting the observations of people who I admire and respect, along with some accompanying remarks by your Humble Dispatcher.  The two posts I published recently that contained excerpts of the Dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas in the Obamacare case and the ‘Same Sex Marriage’ cases, respectively, should be read in conjunction with this Series.

The United State Of America

Jeff Goldstein returned from his self-imposed exile from blogging to offer a brilliant assessment of the impact of, and reasoning behind, the recent Majority Opinions handed-down by The Supreme Court.  It is entitled: How You Get There Matters. Still.

I highly recommend you read it all [no TL;DR excuse accepted here] to help arm yourself philosophically against the coming onslaughts of increased [and emboldened] Despotism.

Here I will focus on one part, one that speaks specifically to the topic of this post:

Regardless of where you stand on same sex marriage, ObamaCare, or the very idea of “unintended discrimination,” the process of how we interpret and apply law — and what counts as liberty, in the sense it was intended by the founders and framers and to the extent it exists in a representative republic — is crucial to the protection of the individual and a the frustration of the state, whose natural impulse is to forever increase it’s own power. It should be of no debate that a country forged in revolution against a faraway King and whose political and social ideas are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, was born of a distrust of centralized authority and a desire for liberty, which was always defined by negative rights. Separation of powers was a key element to the genius of our Constitution, a crucial check on the coalescing of power around a single unified entity. And yet what we have today is an Executive that makes law; a Legislative branch that makes law; an administrative state that makes law; and a SCOTUS that makes law.

That’s about as unified as one centralized federal power can get.

Indeed, we no longer live in The United States, but, rather, as Lee Bascom put it: ‘the United State’.¹

When you have the whole of the national government — the Executive, the Congress, the Federal Judiciary, and the Administrators — making laws, the Several States are denied representation in the running of the Federal Government.

When you have the four branches of said Government overturning laws passed by the Sovereign People’s Elected Representatives in the Several States, they are reduced to being nothing more than administrative units — ‘branch offices’, as it were — for the national government, unable to exercise the Sovereignty granted to them by their own citizens.

Most importantly, when every part of the Federal Government is able to make laws, checks and balances, as properly understood and desired, are no longer possible.  The only check on any single one of the four branches is the Power And Control the other ones, singularly or collectively, can use against the individual branch when it disagrees with it’s proposed law-making.  In other words, Raw Power now governs the operations of the national government.  And the People, who are the Repository of Sovereignty, and the governments they have instituted at the state, county, and local levels, are denied any exercise of their Sovereignty.

This is Tyranny.

A Unified State, such as we live under now, can never be governed, can never be controlled.

It’s actions can never be governed by a Rule Of Law because such a Rule can only be honored when governments are restrained by their very construction, by the elements that make-up it’s ingredients, that shape it’s form and guide it’s functioning, and when The People hold the ultimate Sovereign Power.

A Unified State is, by it’s very Nature, an Arbitrary State, where the Whims of those in Power And Control reign supreme [sideways pun intended].

An Arbitrary State means that every element of it will be Subjective and Dictatorial and Erratic.²  As Jeff writes:

Arbitrary law brings with it the necessity of police state, because to enforce unequal law one must rely on oppression. On tyranny….

So, the Several States have been stripped of their delegated powers and the Will of the Sovereign People has been denied, both by the national government.

Therefore, the Federal Government has lost any claim to Legitimacy.

We owe it no allegiance, nor, if we are to consider ourselves Virtuous, can we offer it any support or sanction.

Without The Rule Of Law, none of our Freedoms and that Ordered Liberty we hold so dear are safe.

The Tyrants have made their big move: have we the Will to counter it?

Where the Law makes no special Provision for the common Safety, the People have a Right to consult their own Preservation; and the necessary Means to withstand a most dangerous attack of arbitrary Power.

—Samuel Adams, Report To The Town Of Boston, 23 March 1773

1. Lee continues:

…The new flag should have only one (beige) star,
and the bars multicolored. No white.

Congress, no longer having any reason for being,
be absorbed by the executive and reimagined as
the Department of lobby.

2. A synonym for the word ‘Erratic’ is ‘Abnormal’ —
any government so constituted will never complement
Man’s Nature; it is anti-Humanity.


  1. 30 June 2015 @ 22:31 22:31

    Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.

  2. 01 July 2015 @ 01:24 01:24

    Well, I guess King Obama is going to force you have gay sex now. You should probably pick up some old Barbara Streisand vinyls and start redecorating. Mounted moose heads and singing fish make for great camp at parties, but that’s about it. Do you know anything about wine?



  1. Ted Cruz, Democrats, and the Supreme Court | Batshit Crazy News
  2. Tumblr is as bad as Robert Stacy McCain has said… | Batshit Crazy News
  3. On The Death Of The Rule Of Law, Part II | The Camp Of The Saints

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: