SCRAP JUNETEENTH. IT WASN'T THE END OF SLAVERY IN US TERRITORY!

This woman is RIGHT!!!

Ever wonder where this came from? I mean unless you were listening, this event came out of the blue. OK, I'm going to be lazy and quote Wikipedia, and not even bother to remove the footnotes, just because this whole thing isn't really worth my time.

Texas was the first state to recognize the date by enacted law, in 1980. By 2002, eight states officially recognized Juneteenth^[97] and four years later 15 states recognized the holiday.^[54] By 2008, just over half of the states recognized Juneteenth in some way.^[98] By 2019, 47 states and the District of Columbia recognized Juneteenth,^[99] although as of 2020 only Texas had adopted the holiday as a paid holiday for state employees.^[100]

In June 2019, Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Wolf recognized Juneteenth as a holiday in the state.^[101] In the yearlong aftermath of the murder of George Floyd that occurred on May 25, 2020, nine states designated Juneteenth a paid holiday,^[102] including New York, Washington, and Virginia.^[103] In 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker issued a proclamation that the day would be marked as "Juneteenth Independence Day". This followed the filing of bills by both the House and Senate to make Juneteenth a state holiday. Baker did not comment on these bills specifically but promised to grant the observance of Juneteenth greater importance.^[104] On June 16, 2021, Illinois adopted a law changing its ceremonial holiday to a paid state holiday.

Spurred on by Opal Lee, the racial justice movement and the Congressional Black Caucus, on June 15, 2021, the Senate unanimously passed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act,^[132] establishing Juneteenth as a federal holiday. It passed through the House of Representatives by a 415–14 vote on June 16.^[133][134] President Joe Biden signed the bill (Pub. L. 117–17 (text) (PDF))^[135][136] on June 17, 2021, making Juneteenth the eleventh American federal holiday and the first to obtain legal observance as a federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was designated in 1983.

So, if you're like me, you didn't notice this "holiday" this year, but I have various reasons which make that an easy thing to do. I can say "Juneteenth Quoi ?" or more like "Juneteenth, quoi c'est bordel?" And most people should be doing that since the 1980s and 1990s, the holiday has been more widely celebrated among African-American communities and has seen increasing mainstream attention in the US. In other words, it popped into the consciousness around 120 years after the fact. And it may be more fiction than fact since.

Planters and other slaveholders from eastern states had migrated into Texas to escape the fighting, and many brought enslaved people with them, increasing by the thousands the enslaved population in the state at the end of the Civil War.^[9] Although most lived in rural areas, more than 1,000 resided in Galveston or Houston by 1860, with several hundred in other large towns.^[37] By 1865, there were an estimated 250,000 enslaved people in Texas.^[9][8]

Despite the surrender of Confederate General-in-Chief Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, the western Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi did not formally surrender until June 2.^[9] On the morning of June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived on the island of Galveston^[38] to take command of the more than 2,000 federal troops recently landed in the department of Texas to enforce the emancipation of its enslaved population and oversee Reconstruction, nullifying all laws passed within Texas during the war by Confederate lawmakers.^[38][39] The order informed all Texans that, in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all enslaved people were free:

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.^[40]

Longstanding urban legend places a historic reading of General Order No. 3 at Ashton Villa; but no historical evidence supports this claim.^[41] There is no evidence that Granger or any of his troops proclaimed the Ordinance by reading it aloud. All indications are that copies of the Ordinance were posted in public places, including the Negro Church on Broadway, since renamed Reedy Chapel A.M.E. Church.^[42]

On June 21, 2014, the Galveston Historical Foundation and Texas Historical Commission erected a Juneteenth plaque where the Osterman Building once stood signifying the location of Major General Granger's Union Headquarters believed to be where he issued his general orders.^[43]

Although this event commemorates the end of slavery, emancipation for the remaining enslaved population in two Union border states, Delaware and Kentucky, would not come until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.^[44][c][e] The federal amendment also put a definitive end to chattel slavery and indentured servitude in New Jersey, freeing approximately 16 elderly individuals.^[f][47][48] Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to free their slaves.^[49][50]

The freedom of formerly enslaved people in Texas was given state law status in a series of Texas Supreme Court decisions between 1868 and 1874.

So, this make be the biggest commemoration of a non-event that ever happened because it wasn't the actual end of slavery in Texas and the General may never have made a speech telling the slaves of a plantation in Galveston that they were free!

And for that matter, there was still slavery despite the Emancipation proclamation!  

I did a post about Juneteenth being relatively unknown until recently. Google Trends analysis of searches on "Juneteenth" only show a massive interest starting from the end of May 2020 to around the 23rd of June.  There was minimal interest in this "holiday" prior to that date.

You weren't crazy if you were wondering why you had never heard of it before 2020,

And you were among a very small group of people if you DID know about this prior to this year.

While the media tried to make this sound like something which had been around for a long time, the reality is that the Juneteenth this was steamrollered over us. Wired points it out in their Why Juneteenth Went Viral. Wired's piece tends toward this being something contemplative, but I do question the interest in Juneteenth, as opposed to Odunde, as being virtue signalling.

It's no coincidence that the movement to celebrate Juneteenth came during the Black Lives Matter riots (sorry, but more than one city was trashed and these were counterproductive as fuck. So, fuck you, I'll call them as I see them). It's more of the meaningless virtue signalling to try and calm the rioters.

But it was a small group of people who made this a thing as Protocol's How a Group of Creatives made Juneteenth 'spread like wildfire'. Yeah, "creatives" as in advertising types. Not just any advertising types, but ones connected to the social media industry.

I am trying to break from the surveillance economy,. Not only do they keep tabs on you, but they try and influence your opinion.

I cried "bullshit" about Russiagate.

I'm crying "bullshit" about the virtue signalling relating to Black Lives Matter. Nothing significant will come from the past few months. If anything, those events will make matters worse. I know they increased gun sales.

I am already certain that Trump will be reelected. Even if he isn't, the Democratic candidate isn't onside.

So, what was the point of it all?

I prefer substance to Bullshit, but the bullshit is piling up like the trash on the streets of Philadelphia and NYC.

{OK, Given that Juneteenth isn't really that meaningfull, this was pulled from Wikipedia and a couple of my previous post on the issue. This is a "holiday" that needs to GO AWAY because it's BS].

The Untold History of U.S. School Shootings: Before Columbine

The US constitution makes it clear that it deals with issues of the common defence, that is the military. It also does not mention personal uses, especially selkf-defence.
It's long past time when the absurdity of "gun rights" is ended.

The Alarming Rise of Political Violence in America

I wanted to come up with something about the targeted assassinations in Minnesota, which is where my two co-bloggers were located. It needs to be tied into what Luigi Mangione did and why that is not acceptable, even if you agree with his message. It's interesting that the act of political violence against politicians happened in Minnesota, even if that is only coincidental. On the other hand, political violence is a very disturbing trend. I agree with this commentator that it doesn't bode well for a country.

Armed mobs are more of a recipe for repression than freedom.

You really think the Founders gave you "gun rights" to defend yourself or to "fight tyranny"???

Gimme a break! You need to read the constitution and TRY to understand it. But this is a good rundown. The constitution is pretty clear that it doesn't want rebellion if you really read the thing.

Stop defending Mangione...

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

His lawyer's exact words from this:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did. 

This is truly an open and shut case.

But, to quote H.L. Mencken:

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."

It never fails to amaze me the people who support Mangione. 

Leopold, Loeb, and Luigi

Now that Mangione's handwritten confession, which it pretty much is, is out there, we see him talking about "normies". I've already described him as a 21st century Leopold and Loeb. A smart, rich kid who thought he could commit a the perfect crime and get away with it. Unlike Leopold and Loeb who tried to commit the perfect crime, this guy was a total bozo. He was way too obvious and didn't cover his tracks.

The notebook is basically Mangione talking about his preparation for the murder. I have to admit that it has me thinking about Leopold and Loeb who  thought they were clever enough to get away with murder, and they spent months plotting out what they considered to be a foolproof scheme. Mangione talks about Ted  Kaczynski, the unabomber. He also talks about how he failed because the "normies" thought he was a monster. But what is a "normie"? Someone who is normal? Which is another thing which makes me think of Leopold and Loeb:

Leopold was interested in psychology, particularly the concept of Übermenschen (“supermen”) put forth by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche suggested that there were certain members of society with superior intellect who were able to rise above the laws that were meant for ordinary people.

Soon, Leopold became convinced that he was one of these supermen and, as such, was not bound by the laws or ethics of society. Eventually, he convinced Loeb that he was one, too.

They thought they were immune from society's laws, and to prove that, they would commit the perfect

crime:

At the end of 1923, Leopold and Loeb started planning their “perfect crime.” They decided murder would garner the most attention, so they began plotting how they would get away with it. They chose a weapon, decided how they would dispose of the body, and drafted a ransom note. All they needed was a victim.

 Mangione is looking for a victim who won't be sympathetic so he can "finally feel confident about what I will do. The details are coming together. And I don't feel any doubt about whether it's right/justified," He picked his victim because he worked in the insurance industry: "The target is insurance. It checks every box." Even sicker is that he decided he should instead "wack [sic] the CEO" at the conference because it doesn't "risk innocents."

He may have book smarts, but he sure as fcuk lacks knowse. There were several bystanders and his homemade gun put them in danger of being shot. He also seems unaware that terrorism isn't about the amount or extent of the victims or damage, but is very much a crime of intent. He wrote himself into a death penalty. Toss in that most jurisdictions enhance extrajudicial killing if they show intent. And His confession is more than enough proof.

He should have stuck to gaming since reality isn't his strong point.

There is a big difference between Leopold and Loeb and Luigi as he is now.  Leopold commented on his and Loeb’s “perfect crime" in his autobiography:

“Looking back from the vantage point of today, I cannot understand how my mind worked then. For I can recall no feeling then of remorse. Remorse did not come until later, much later. It did not begin to develop until I had been in prison for several years; it did not reach its full flood for perhaps 10 years. Since then, for the past quarter century, remorse has been my constant companion. It is never out of my mind. Sometimes it overwhelms me completely, to the extent that I cannot think of anything else.”

Also, Leopold and Loeb plead guilty, their process was a sentencing hearing. Mangione isn't willing to admit he was caught.  I think his arrogance is clouding his judgement.

Anyway, these are just my observations from what I have seen of both cases. And like Leopold and Loeb, Luigi is going to go away. But I don't think he is going to escape the death penalty unless he pleads out, but his ego won't allow him to plead out.

And a jury nullifier might cause a mistrial, but that will only delay the inevitable that Luigi will never see freedom. I also wonder how many of these lovestruck people would want a homicidal stalker loose on the world?

Yes, the AR-14 is a Real Gun...Sort Of

Stop laughing at Joe Biden: Armalite actually thought about making them. So, if you are going to take people to task for saying AR in AR15 (or AR-7) is "assault rifle", then you can't attack Biden for talking about AR-14s, because Armalite did have plans...

Now I'm curious if there are some serious gun nuts out there who will want to buy a real Armalite AR-14!

The Problem Isn’t Bernie, It’s the Party.

Given that health care is a big topic, I think he would have had a lot more appeal. Toss in that he comes from a historically red State (Vermont). The only people he didn't appeal to were the big donors.

The Constitution Wasn’t Sacred—It Was a Battle of Revolution. And It’s Failing again.

I've always thought "We the people" was propaganda: especially since the Constitution was pretty much drafted in secret. This is an interesting take on the document.

French Guns, not private arms won the War for Independence

This myth needs to die a quick death.

An AI Goes Insane, Emails FBI Over $2

We need to revive the Luddite movement since computers truly will never replace humans, unless companies want to lose customers due to poor customer service. And we can't forget how bad AI and the blockchain are to the environment.

I would add that businesses need to take responsibility and not try to push it off on machines.

Then again, I would love to see the tech bubble burst bigtime. And it sounds like its coming soon:

AI is scaring both sides of the political spectrum. Both JD Vance and Cenk Cygur are pointing out how AI can go out of control.

Just remember that a market economy requires a market, which are customers. Businesses exist for customers, not customers for businesses. The Jevins paradox meets the Ai paradox.

#AngryVeteran Rants About Cheering The Burning Plantation

 I don't totally agree with what he says, but I agree for the most part of what he says.

And not having the plantation around makes it a whole lot easier to deny what happened.

Yes, they do have weddings in concentration camps

I mentioned in my last post that getting married in a plantation would be the perfect form of revenge given marriage and family life was not allowed.  Actually, this is a subject for debate, but I don't want to get into it.

I object to any comparison of plantations to concentration camps since I see a lot of ignorance even from historians in the US about this topic. 

Number one and most importantly, the only people who wanted to see these destroyed were the people who committed the crimes. Everyone else is aware that the destruction of concentration camps will erase their memory. I used the example of Belzec. It was one of the operation Reinhard camps where between 430,000 and 500,000 Jews (I would say more but cannot prove it) are believed to have been murdered by the SS at Bełżec . It was the third-deadliest extermination camp, exceeded only by Treblinka and Auschwitz. Only seven members of the Sonderkommando Survived.

Not many people have heard about it because it was destroyed. But that is an aside.

The second reason is that like under slavery, Jews were discouraged from getting married in the camps. Marriage was an act of resistance:

“They got married in the ghetto and gave birth there. The “Death Machine” didn’t break the main thing – the human spirit and the will to live. After all, they wouldn’t let them die, otherwise, it was the ultimate surrender”, – says Alexander Boroda, the President of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia.

After the war, people found themselves in Displaced Persons camps, some of which were on the site of former concentration camps. They got married in those camps.

But to answer the question:

Historic military compound the Seventh Fort in Vilnius, Lithuania has become a popular site for weeding parties and children summer camps, but, according to Israeli press, a Nazi German concentration camp had once stood there.

Belgian new portal New Europe reports citing The Jerusalem Post that the 18-acre red-brick bunker complex built in 1880s was also the site of a concentration camp in 1941. The Israeli newspaper wrote that thousands of Jews were imprisoned, treated inhumanely, killed and buried at the Seventh Fort.

from https://bnn-news.com/weddings-in-vilnius-held-near-wwii-concentration-camp-148244 

The weddings are not held on the area where the Holocaust victims are buried, which is only 2% of the camp area.

So, if you are going to use the concentration camp example, then the descendants of formerly enslaved people should be "jumping" at the chance to get married on a plantation since it was something denied to their ancestors.

And descendants of people killed in concentration camps show their defiance and love for life by doing exactly that.

Supreme Court Can’t Hear Case Because Majority Had To Be Recused

People are upset about the mention of "court packing", but the founders didn't put judicial review into the Constitution. Toss in that the Supreme Court didn't have ethics rules until 2023!

And when they did adopt ethics rules (from NPR):

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday adopted its first-ever ethics code, bowing to pressure from Congress and the public. All nine justices signed onto the new code, which was instantly criticized for lack of an enforcement mechanism.

In an unsigned statement, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by certain standards.

"The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules," they wrote. "To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

Public trust in the court has fallen amid revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts and travel from Harlan Crow, a Republican donor. Justice Samuel Alito has also been criticized for failing to disclose a fishing trip with Paul Singer, a big Republican donor with cases before the Supreme Court.

This gets better

With the release of the code Monday, the court is trying to be somewhat specific about what justices can and cannot do. But, there is a lot they can do and no enforcement mechanism as to what they are supposed not to do.

For example, the code is quite specific about financial transactions: Justices can make a real estate transaction, as long as it's not before the court. But the code simply reaffirms the commitment to the disclosure provisions that are in the existing code for all federal judges.

The code is also specific about recusal if family members, such as spouses, children or grandchildren, have a case before the court or is a lawyer before the court.

But the code also makes exceptions for justices that may not apply to lower court judges. For instance, a justice doesn't have to recuse if his or her relative files a friend of the court brief because the court receives so many of these briefs, sometimes over 100 in a single case, and it has loosened the rules on these briefs being filed.

In recent months, critics have raised concerns about Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, and her activities to promote political causes that end up before the court. The code says that if a spouse or child living with the justice has a substantial interest in the outcome of a case — financial or any other interest — the justice is supposed to recuse. That would have meant, for example, that Justice Thomas would have to recuse in cases in which his wife has played a major role. Last year, Thomas did not recuse, and was the sole dissenter, in a case about whether former President Trump's White House records had to be turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, despite Ginni Thomas' texts to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to take steps to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

 I'm sorry, but I have not had respect for the US Supreme Court for a long time. Serious ethics rules would be a start.

Jumping the broom

James Catnach - The Marriage Act Displayed in Cuts and Verse (British Library)

I'm not going to go into the history of this tradition other than to repeat something said in one article about it:

Parry writes that despite the racial animus which characterized the US South during the nineteenth century, poor white Southerners (many of whom were descendants of people who had irregular forms of matrimony in Britain) and enslaved African Americans had more cultural exchange than is commonly acknowledged.

But the reason I bring it up is that one of the institutions which was prohibited to slaves was marriage and a stable family life. A lot of the criticism about Nottoway is that it was used for weddings, which was something prohibited to slaves. On the other hand, no one has mentioned if blacks were prohibited from celebrating their marriages there in recent times. I'm not going to get into a discussion of "jumping the broom" or the institution of marriage during slavery since it would take a lot more than a blog post.

On the other hand, what would be a better form of revenge than for black people to get married on a place where it was prohibited to their ancestors?

I see way too much boohooing and handwringing that "slavery was bad" without too much introspection on what has been lost to future generations. The concentration camps have been kept as memorials. The only people who wanted them destroyed were the people who committed the crimes to hide the evidence. 

Have you ever heard of Belzec? No, it was destroyed to hide the evidence. If you are going to mention concentration camps--then you should mention that.

This place was up for sale not too long ago: why didn't people buy it to turn it into another Whitney Plantation where slavery is addressed honestly?

To be honest if reparations are going to happen, they probably won't monetary, or just focused on one race: they will only come from an honest and open discussion of race in America.

And destroying the places which are painful really isn't the answer.

Nottoway Plantation--Those who forget the past may repeat its mistakes

I'm rather surprised by black people rejoicing at the destruction of this plantation since it seems to me that they would want to preserve this. They seem to ignore that the destruction of this historic structure erases it from the collective memory. It's like destroying native American heritage wipes it from the mental landscape.

While blacks know about it, I thought I would try to find an unbiased account of this place. The US media is sharply divided on the issue with blacks being disgusted by the house being used for weddings. This is despite areas where the slaves were kept being present. Also, this plantation was a sugar plantation, which made far more money than cotton did.

I am one who believes in trying to stay historically accurate. I agree with this comment by Redacted on the Independent.co.uk website. Perhaps more deference should have been given to the slaves, but I didn't hear anyone who has commented about how happy they are to see the destruction of this plantation say that the current owners discriminated in anyway.

And it would be ironic if black people had weddings and visited the plantation, which they can't do for the time being.

Anyway, I tried to find some coverage about Nottoway in the French media and only found articles about it as a tourist destination.

So, maybe the joy is merited.

On the other hand, one of the youtube posts rejoicing in the destruction was followed by a very complimentary post about Nathan Bedford Forrest.

The French have a saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

I'm with Michael Twitty, the person who wrote the screencapped article at the top of this page:

Coming to terms with what these plantations have meant is a process that takes time and generational commitment. Plantations and sites related to slavery have to have foot traffic and human and financial investment to preserve the evidence of African and African American labor, craft and resistance. Still, they shouldn’t exist as mere resorts.

Trump has found Gödel's Loophole in the US Constitution which allows the US to become a dictatorship.

Kurt Gödel was an Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher. He was born in Austria and emmigrated to the United States

When Gödel was studying to take his American citizenship test in 1947, he came across what he called an "inner contradiction" in the U.S. Constitution. At the time, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was good friends with Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern. Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the U.S. to legally become a fascist state. Morgenstern tried to convince Gödel that this was very unlikely, but Gödel remained very concerned about it. He was an Austrian by birth and, having lived through the 1933 coup d'état and escaped from Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, had reason to be concerned about living in a fascist dictatorship. Morgenstern had secret discussions with Gödel about his concerns and told Einstein about them.

Since the exact nature of Gödel's Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known. In his 2012 paper "Gödel's Loophole" F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still.  Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other aspects of the Constitution in mind as well, including the abuse of gerrymandering, prorogation of Congress, the Electoral College, and the presidential pardon.

In any case, the Gödel story is at least plausible. He spent a great deal of time thinking about systems of rules (axiom systems in mathematics), and looking for their limits and what such systems can say about themselves.

It should come as no surprise that when encouraged to look at the US constitution (which is, after all, just a set of rules), Gödel was enthusiastic and his thoughts turned immediately to what the system said about itself – and its limitations. It should also come as no surprise then that when he looked, he found some.

So, maybe the loophole isn't what is written in the US Constitution, but is something which has come about through tradition?  Although, I have come to realise the US Constitution is basically poorly written bumpf. A piece of shit written by a committee. Which is why he couldn't put his finger on one thing. Since as the speculation has pointed out, there are more than enough problems with it.

But Donald Trump pushed the envelope with his attack on birthright citizenship. Which is something I agree about and there is a simple solution which requires an amendment to the Constitution that at least one parent needs to have some legal connection to the United States (Ireland uses this). But instead of following tradition and protocol, Trump has chosen to use the nuclear option.

He's challenging the Supreme Court and its power.

So much for checks and balances.

So, I am going to quote myself on the biggest problem, which is one which custom has allowed to stand.

In fact, those decisions (Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment) should be laughed at. And any academic or practising lawyer who is shit for brains enough to give them the slightest credence should be barred from the practise of law since they ignore a fundamental basis of US Constitutional law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

It's one of the first cases any constitutional law class covers, which is why anyone who gives Heller and McDonald a shred of legitimacy should be barred from the practise of law. Why? First off.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial review for constitutionality is not a power granted by the US Constitution: it comes from this case.

More importantly it centred around a clause in the US Constitution (hint, hint, for those shit for brains who want to call themselves "Constitutional Scholars").

My question when Heller came down was how does the system handle an out of control Judiciary? The obvious answer is that it defers to tradition. On the other hand, Trump is pointing out that the emperor is naked. Does the Supreme Court, or the Judiciary, have any real power to enforce its decisions? 

So, maybe the reason Gödel didn't tell anyone what this loophole happened to be was because it is that the entire constitution is a house of cards. Gödel could see this since English wasn't his first language and he was a logician. The loophole isn't something which is written into the constitution, it is something which was attributed to the constitution.

And as I have pointed out, proper legal method requires that something needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for it to be constitutional. Gödel's loophole is the deference given to concepts which are not explicitly written into the Constitution. Assumptions made by the founders which can be exploited by those with malicious intent. And the fact that language changes meaning.

The Second Amendment was the perfect example of this.

So, two people whose mother tongue is not English can agree on this. It's not what is written, it is what ISN'T written. Or is subject to misinterpretation.

Scalia was very wrong when he said: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

That is precisely what he needed to do before he set in motion the destruction of the United States.

And the "scholars", politicians, and lawyers who allowed this should resign their positions for someone who is competent.

Politics and appearance: Mangione's supporters explained

OK, the US political system is broken. I doubt it was ever functional from 1759 onward. Benjamin Franklin suggested a plan for unifying the thirteen colonies the Albany Congress on July 10, 1754 in Albany, New York. The Albany Plan of Union was rejected. Franklin wrote about the rejection of his proposals: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

Joseph Galloway suggested a similar proposal at the First Continental Congress of 1774 but was also rejected. The Articles of Confederation were proposed at the Second Continental Congress and finally accepted in 1781! Of course, the Articles of Confederation were a failure, and its replacement is nearly as bad.

Anyway, the US has had a culture of violence and disunity from the start.

I'm sorry the founders didn't just admit they messed up.

'America Could Not Have Won The War Without France'

Tant pis pour vous, car ces singes mangeurs de fromage sont la seule véritable raison pour laquelle vous avez votre indépendance. Auriez-vous pu continuer à voler des provisions pour poursuivre votre révolte si les Européens n'étaient pas intervenus ? Pas de tout!

Loyalist Networks and the Coming of the American Revolution in New York ...

As I said in an earlier post: British North America isn't that hard an alternative reality since it's called Canada. The British North America Acts, 1867–1975, are a series of acts of Parliament that were at the core of the Constitution of Canada. Most were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and some by the Parliament of Canada. So, being a tory didn't mean one was against "independence", it just meant that any change in status had to come through a lawful process. Rebellion is not a lawful means. 

I agree with Christopher Minty that the Loyalist side of the story needs to be told.

After all, this person was a Boston tory who said that he would prefer to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants a mile away.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

The US is too soft on unlawfully present people

 The less politically correct term is illegal immigrant, but the issue is their immigration status. One of the reasons for the laxness is that it is not a crime to be unlawfully present in the US, which it is in most other countries.

Anyway, this video is someone trying to get into Canada to work without proper authorisation.

I support stronger immigration controls since there definitely needs to be some sort of background check performed on people who want to come here. But it shouldn't be difficult for those who want to do it legally.

Would You Have Joined the American Revolution?

You might be surprised! And that's not my tory speaking. 

You don't understand natural rights if you think they give you a right to own a weapon

 "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."

I will admit I have a lot of problems with the concept of "natural rights" with the major one being that they don't exist. The reason I started this post with the quote from the Declaration of Independence is that is says "liberty" would be a natural right. As an extension, so would slavery, yet the person who wrote that owned slaves and raped one of them: Saslly Hemmings.

And if we are getting into that they are "god given", shouldn't they be somewhat in line with the ten commandments?  Establishing natural rights seems a rather straightforward thing to sort out amongst citizens, but even the most basic natural right, the right to life, is fraught with potential pitfalls such as 'does that right include or exclude the right to an abortion or the right to euthanasia?' But more in line with this is the ability to use deadly force despite the commandment "thou shalt not kill". 

As I point out for one of my arguments that the Heller decision is wrong is that the use of deadly force in common law at the time of the drafting of the constitution was a last resort. The common law scholar, Blackstone, wrote concerning this the law of self-defence:

THE defence of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affrayd . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lenghs of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3

In the Enlightenment, some of the greatest minds in history set themselves the formidable task of thrashing out just what should be considered natural rights. In fact, there is quite a debate as to what exactly these rights would be and how they come about. I've already said that anyone can claim anything as a right, but whether your claimed right is accepted is another matter.

I would also add that this is a much more complex philosophical issue than most of the people who talk about it realise.  It's not the libertarian state of nature, but an acceptance of a social contract. And even the state of nature has its rules. And the rules come from the use of reason which makes everyone equal and by necessity must respect other's rights. Expecially in ways that would harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

The motivation behind the individual’s leaving the state of nature—the state of liberty—lies in the uncertainty and insecurity of enjoying life, liberty, and physical goods.  Locke recognized in his Second Treatise of Government  that individuals would perceive themselves in the following way: “For all being kings as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state [of nature] is very unsafe, very unsecure.” Individuals, therefore, must remain in a state of vigilance against others who do not properly use their reason to recognize the truth of natural rights. Instead of living peacefully, acquiring property, and pursuing their own conception of happiness, individuals must stay vigilant against those who are willing to violate another’s life, liberty, or property, thus presenting a barrier for others from enjoying any or all of them. Hence, it is rational to consent to a social contract, even for those who would not follow the natural law in the state of nature, and establish a government that quells this state of “continual danger.” The end—or purpose and final cause—of “uniting into [a] commonwealth” and erecting a government, therefore, is “the preservation of property”—where property is understood to include life, liberty, and property.

Citizens relinquish some of their powers from the state of nature; more specifically, these include the powers of “doing whatsoever he [thinks] fit for the preservation of himself” and “punishing others” whom he thinks committed injustices against him. Locke believed that citizens should first establish general and promulgated law “received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them.”

The reality is that even if you want to claim a "natural right", there needs to be some consensus from society about that right. The problem with the Second Amendment is that there is so much misinformation about it out there and very little fact.  I found an interesting abstract on this which pretty much sums up what I am saying:

A growing body of scholarship claims that the Second Amendment was intended to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense against violence. In this Article, Heyman shows that this view is based on a misunderstanding of the natural rights tradition, as reflected in the works of Locke and Blackstone, the post-Revolutionary state declarations of rights, and the debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Natural rights theory held that, when individuals entered society, they largely gave up their right to use force against others in return for the protection that they received under the law. And while the people retained a right to resist and over- throw governmental tyranny, this was a right that belonged not to private individuals but to the community as a whole. In this way, Heyman argues, the natural rights tradition provides more support for a collective right than for an individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Steven J. Heyman, Natural Rights and the Second Amendment, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 237 (2000).
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/8

And if we are going down the path of it being a natural right, it has fallen victim to absurdity: not reason. The concept of natural rights does indeed mean that people have given up their "individual rights" to be members of society. And to claim that something which is detrimental to society is a "right" is absurd.

Britain's Forgotten Riflemen: Deadly Sharpshooters of the Revolution

Another myth about the war for independence bites the dust.

I'm not sure how to title this post about "assault weapons"...

For some reason, some "Democrats" have decided to revive the proposal about banning "assault weapons". Let's start with the obvious: it's the same old shit rehashed. That is "Cosmetic features" and a list of firearms which is one of the reasons the first was a failure. The manufacturers went out and reworked their firearms into "sporter versions" and some were grandfathered in.

I like that the HK94 was being sold prior to the ban. The HK94 was a carbine version of the H&K MP5 but it had a long barrel. That meant it wasn't short barreled rifle. Anyway, these were grandfathered in. I've heard that they command a high price since people buy them and are able to convert them to fully automatic! Of course, as far as I know there has been no NFA item which has been used in a crime.

But this is a good segue to the 26 USC 5845 definition of a Machine gun:

Machine guns, defined as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

 I copied this from another post where I talk about the M1 carbine being banned. Using this definition there is the M2 variant is designed to be capable of fully automatic fire, therefore, the M1 is a machinegun using that defintion.

I strongly suggest that people read the case law 26 USC 5845 in particular the law relating to “designed to shoot” and “readily restored to shoot”:

“There were two welds in the gun which obviously was, when manufactured, ‘designed to shoot.’ The barrel of the gun was welded closed at the breech and was also welded to the receiver on the outside under the handguard. Scroggie testified that there are two possible ways by which the firearm could be made to function as such. The most feasible method would be to cut the barrel off, drill a hole in the forward end of the receiver and then rethread the hole so that the same or another barrel could be inserted. To do so would take about an 8-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop. Another method which would be more difficult because of the possibility of bending or breaking the barrel would be to drill the weld out of the breech of the barrel. United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399(8th Cir.1973)

In the context of the NFA and its use as a modifier describing the manner of firearm restoration, “readily” has been read to encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has to be changed to allow it to shoot automatically; (8) feasability, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction. See S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 253, 254-55 (11th Cir. 1987) (ease and scope); United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1982) (expertise, ease, and scope); United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1973) (time and equipment); United States v. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1362 (M.D.Fla.1999) (time, ease, expertise, and equipment); United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 573-75 (D.D.C.1980) (time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability, expense, and feasibility); United States v. Cook, No. 92-1467, 1993 WL 243823, at *3-4 (6th Cir. July 6, 1993) (availability)…
The decisions of several other courts make clear that the Defendant weapon, which would require, according to Alverson’s own expert, a maximum of six hours to convert to fire automatically, “can be readily restored” under the NFA. The Eighth Circuit held that a semiautomatic rifle that would take an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop to convert to shoot automatically qualified as a “machinegun” under the NFA.10 Smith, 477 F.2d at 400; cf. United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1367 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that disassembled guns that could be made to shoot automatically were “readily restor[able]”); S.W. Daniel, Inc., 831 F.2d at 254-55 (upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts”); Alverson, 666 F.2d at 345 (concluding that an automatic weapon that was converted to fire semiautomatically prior to its sale to defendant could be “readily restored” where it could be modified to shoot automatically by filing down one of its parts); United States v. Lauchli, 371 F.2d 303, 312-13 (7th Cir.1966) (in a case prior to the addition of the “can be readily restored” language to the NFA, deciding that weapons requiring assembly to shoot automatically were machineguns under the NFA). U.S. v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416(2006)

There’s readily restorable for you!

 Anyway, there are enough manuals out there on how to turn semi-automatic weapons into full auto that it should be a no-brainer that these firearms fit the above description of readily restorable.

Let's throw in things like bump fire and other mods that turn these weapons into fully automatic fire without making an actual conversion.

So, there is a law on the books which has been on the books for some time which would have prevented the sale of these firearms, but nobody bothered with enforcing it.

Let's toss in that getting all the semi-automatic firearms off the street now would require one very large buyback, which would be at fair market value, as well as an amnesty period. Probably any serious ban would require periodic amnesties as well and the type of turn ins that follow the discovery of "inherited" NFA items.

And the political climate is really unfavourable for this type of law. It has been since the Heller decision came out. But like anything political in this country: no one (in power) had the fortitude to address the issue.

Bottom line: too much talk has been about gun rights, rights come with responsibilities.  It's time we start factoring in that too many people are not responsible gun owners. But they are the loud crowd.

Nice idea, but...

The history of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

The problem with the US supreme court is that it has become political and not impartial. If anything, it has become a joke.

Scalia was the wrong person to judicially amend the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny need to be relegated to the dustbin of judicial decisions because it is not supported by reality, but is a "justice" promoting his beliefs over the law.

There were authorities which should have taken precedence, especially if that clown wanted to claim to be "an originalist".

As I have pointed out many times self-defence is not mentioned in the US Constitution. would also add that the Constitution makes clear that it deals with matters of the common defence in the preamble and is silent on self-defence. Any first year law student knows that when a legal document is silent on an issue that that issue is not covered. There are a few other accepted rules of statutory interpretation which pretty much rule out that self-defence is addressed in the US Constitution and that the Second Amendment should be extended to allow for deadly weapons to be used for that purpose.

This adds in that the concept of self-defence in traditional common law is a mitigation, not an excuse. The black letter common law for this is:

Self-defence is a legal doctrine which says that a person may use reasonable force in the defence of themself or another.

Reasonable force is not in the mind of the person claiming self-defence, but in the finder of fact's (jury or judge) opinion. But the rule is pretty much that deadly force is NOT allowed unless there are extreme circumstances.

This might be the time to push this issue. No matter what, I would like an answer on the matter of how an "originalist" can somehow rule on constitutionality since that is not found in the text of the Constitution.

Even more importantly, an Originalist should not go against precedent and the Constitution as written. I am not sure how one would handle overturning a law for unconstitutionality since that is not a role given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Instead, it is found in custom.

Having a power which could strike down improper, and I should say unconstitutional since the concept of judicial review also is not found in the US Constitution, 

It comes from the case of Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Marbury also says that no clause in the Constitution is without meaning, which means that Heller and McDonald are BS since they ignore a clause in the Second Amendment.

The rule of law requires deference to precedent and legal method, which is something anyone wishing to bear the title of Supreme Court Justice should follow.

 

American Independence From the British Perspective

The move for independence wouldn't have happened had the French won in the Seven Years/French and Indian War. That opened up the west and got rid of a threat (the French and Indians). Of course, it opened up a bunch of other problems.

The main one being "who's gonna pay for this?"

But war was definitely not the answer.

Footnote to all this: The colonists weren't too keen on paying taxes anyway as Ben Franklin found out in 1759 with the Albany Plan. Franklin wrote: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

I've been hearing that the War for Independence wasn't a war against a foreign foe, but was a civil war. Toss in how much it messed up the country whether the foe was domestic or foreign. Part of my fascination for this is that the scholars who address this issue point out that Tory meant conservative, as it still does.

Even more interesting to me is that there were many more loyalists out there than most people realise. Particularly in the southern states. I've seen comments where people from the south will say there were battles fought without a British presence during the War for Independence. I would also add the coercive nature of the rebels, particularly in New England.

Toss in that the militia needed to be under some form of civilian control, which is really what the "well-regulated" means. Even if you want to use the "well trained" meaning, there needs to be some form of structure because fighting a war requires a lot more than just being a good shot. There has to be discipline and serious drill, which comes from, well, organised training. Or as the Supreme Court said in Presser, which pretty much dealt with the militia:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The issue was the common defence and how it would be structured. not personal weaponry.

Unless you can show me those exact words in the constitution, then you're wrong and I am right because it does make it clear if you go a little beyond "we the people"  that the document addresses the common defence.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution Part 2: The Septics were the better troops.

The myth is that the minutemen drove them out at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Not at all. 

Is Luigi Mangione a vigilante or a terrorist?

 Ok, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, they tend to overlap.

I need to set up some definitions. I will define vigilantism as "collective coercive practices undertaken by non-state actors in order to enforce norms (social or judicial) and/or to take the law in their own hands". 

British criminologist Les Johnston suggests several criteria for defining vigilantism in his article What is Vigilantism?:

it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; it is a form of autonomous citizenship and, as such, constitutes a social movement; it uses or threatens the use of force; it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

The punisments meted out by vigilantes can be quite spectacular and symbolic: vigilantes cannot arrest all criminals but can make punishment into a symbol to frighten others. Sanctioning often takes the form of physical punishment, public humiliation or, more rarely, execution. These sanctions are an attempt to control by exemplary punishment. So, the use of lynching is an example of both vigilantism and terrorism.

Terrorism  is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

What we have is the common factor of violence used to enforce, or create, a norm. Extra-legal or extra-Constitutional use of threats, or physical and psychological violence to punish, or to cause, incite or stoke fear and hate are common to both vigilantism and terrorism.  I would say that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two since they share the characteristics of (1) use of force (2) for a political purpose. 

Some might want to say that vigilantism is supposed to enforce the "law", or at least the established order. On the other hand, it is a non-governmental actor using force most of the time in violation of the law. To go back to the lynching example: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) targeted African-Americans as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists. The KKK used physical assault and lynching, against politically active blacks and their allies, even if the latter were whites. This was all done in opposition to the civil rights movement.

As I said, there is not a clear line between vigilantism and terrorism: both use violence for a political purpose.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution

Yet another myth goes down the crapper.


And while we're at it, the guns used by the Rebels were either English Brown Besses or French Charleville. The Navigation Acts pretty much precluded any home made guns by the Americans. BTW, note that the Brown Bess has "Tower", as in Tower of London, which is where the Royal Armoury is located and GR with a crown showing it was property of the British Government. I think there broad arrows as well, which means this was British government property.

In other words, the guns were STOLEN!


And stop calling the French "Cheese eating, surrender monkeys" since the US wouldn't exist without their help. Besides, the Swiss fit the cheese eating description much better if you know Swiss history.

OK, Luigi Mangione supporters!

 Yeah, I want to see him convicted.

And for some very good reasons, which I am going to try to explain for your sick minds.

Let's start off with what Brian Thompson did was NOT ILLEGAL! Yeah, no law against it. You might have been able to sue him, but you couldn't send him to prison for his business decisions regarding healthcare coverage, but being unethical doesn't make it illegal. The revolting nature of the business decisions of Brian Thompson and UnitedHealthcare, its cruelty, much though we may deplore it, is not a legal basis for murder. And if you have issues with what Thompson did there are methods in the system for you to change it.

But you are a bunch of lazy fucks who aren't going to do the serious work needed to change the system. I am trying, but I am on my own.
And you're not helping!

Next, murder IS ILLEGAL. Toss in that just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to kill outside the law. You are just as bad as the anti-abortion activists who have no problem with killing abortion providers.

And where will it take us if you want to have the fucked up belief that killing someone outside the law is in any way justified? The pictures are of Alan Berg. He had outspoken atheistic and liberal views along with a confrontational interview style. He was known for upsetting some callers to the point they began sputtering, whereupon he would berate them.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés of the Moderate Voice website wrote in 2007: "He didn't pick on the poor, the frail, the undefended: He chose Roderick Elliot and Frank "Bud" Farell, who wrote The Death of the White Race and Open Letter to the Gentiles, and other people from the white supremacist groups... the groups who openly espoused hatred of blacks, Jews, leftists, homosexuals, Hispanics, other minorities and religious groups".

Berg was assassinated by members of the white supremacist group The Order, which believed in killing all Jews and sending all black people to Africa.

As I have pointed out before, your support for Mangione takes you into extreme right wing territory. Toss in that you don't help your cause because you make it plain that Mangione's actions WERE political, which puts him square into the defintion of being a terrorist.

Some people don't get that it isn't how many people you kill that makes you a terrorist, but your reason for killing the people.  If Alan Berg had been killed by someone he pissed off, that wouldn't be terrorism. But the fact that he was killed by the Order because of his beliefs: that he "was mainly thought to be anti-white and he was Jewish."

Let's go to the definition of Lynching:

Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged or convicted transgressor or to intimidate others. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation.

Of course, Emmet Till wasn't lynched by a mob. So, a lynching can also be used to mean an act of violence used to intimidate. And it wasn't just blacks who were lynched. I would suggest looking up Wiley Brownlee.

But, an act of violence done for political reasons fits the description of terrorism: whether you like it or not.

So, is this something you really want to be associated with: especially when Mangione's confession.

Er, "manifesto" is made public? I don't think you will want your internet history coming out when you find out what an arrogant little psycho Mangione happens to be. You may be smart, but you are the epitome of ignorance if you are supporting him.

I would like to think that the light turned on in your head if you read this, but probably not.

After all, do you want to live in a world where people get away with murder?

Tory during the American War for Independence didn't mean they were against independence.

 It sort of amuses me that one line of alternative history is the what if the 13 Colonies had remained united with Great Britain. The reason that it amuses me is that alternative played out: in Canada. Anyone familiar with Canadian history knows this, but the short form from Wikipedia:

The term Tory was first used to designate the pre-Confederation British ruling classes of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, known as the Family Compact and the Château Clique, an elite within the governing classes and often members within a section of society known as the United Empire Loyalists (UEL). The United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies who resettled elsewhere in British North America during or after the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly,  The terms "Tory" and "Loyalist" also were used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Surprisingly, about 80% of the Loyalists remained in the United States after the war. The 60,000 or so Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Bahamas, or returned to Great Britain after the American War of Independence are known as United Empire Loyalists. Unlike the UEL, Loyalists in the states didn't make as much of a fuss. In fact, they are incredibly hard to learn about.

 Tory conservativism is the type of conservativism that wants to follow the law and uphold the established social order, which is why Canada worked peacefully toward its "independence" from Britain. Hence, the British loyalty oath is:

I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles (o whoever the monarch happens to be), his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The loyalist take on US independence is vastly different with the British not spending much time on it and Canadians dealing with the movement from "la conquête" and a bit beyond. If you're lucky, you will be treated to the chaos which were the early years of the republic. I suggest the two series The War that Made America and Rebels and Redcoats.

The reason I would start the movement for independence starting with the French and Indian War. The easiest way for Britain to have kept the 13 colonies would have been to have said to General Braddock not to leave port until the colonists had come up with money to pay for their defence.

And to bugger off if they didn't.

Fortunately (Unfortunately?), the French weren't as interested in its North American territory as they were with the Caribbean ones. Had the Seven Years War turned out differently, the Colonists might have been incredibly tight with Britain realising that was their best bet for any serious defence.



When the bill arrived for the French and Indian War, the colonists were highly upset. They didn't learn their lesson: that war isn't the answer since it costs a lot of money. That is a lesson which is neglected in US history of the War for Independence.

The taxes weren't illegal, they were the bill for their defence.

But the colonists begged, borrowed, and stole their way through the War for Independence. And Louis XVI lost his head because its support for the colonists helped bankrupt France. 

The newly independent colonists sort of learned their lesson, but that also turned out to be a mess. After all, a few of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And as the video above pointed out, they colonists weren't interested in paying taxes: even if it came from their own government. 

War was not the answer and the tories have been proven to be correct. The better course of action would have been to have worked peacefully within the legal framework since the War for Independence resulted in a mess which has lingered into modern times.

 

Since I mentioned it: What is the Privy Council of the United Kingdom?

As this person points out, the Privy council does a lot of things. One is that it can be the final arbiter of courts of appeal. Given that the Rule of Law is one of the key points of commonwealth membership, it seems that having a final say in decisions which are ultra vires. That is ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires ('within the powers').

The Heller decision was ultra vires since it went outside the case law and legislative history to judicially amend the constitution. The ironic bit being that the source for judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), is a case dealing with clauses in the constitution and says that they cannot be ignored.



Somebody needs to swat a judicial hand or two.

Could the US Actually Join the Commonwealth?

I have to admit this intrigues me. It's also related to another post on that being a Tory didn't mean one was against independence during the War for Independence. After all, Canada became "independent" under the Commonwealth as this points out. Toss in I've joked about this for a long time.

Of course, I feel even less involved in this than Brexit: especially since my first choice would be that the United Kingdon rejoin the European Union. Even if that meant some "unfavourable" terms. I don't trust Britain post-Windrush in regard to citizenship, among other things.

On the other hand, there would be some interesting developments if the US actually did join the comonwealth since two requirements are following the rule of law and transparent ("free and fair") elections. The latter being the more interesting of the two since elections in commonwealth countries  are not perpetual. They don't drag on forever.

But the rule of law would mean that the US Supreme Court may no longer be the final word in appellate decisions. The United States comes from the common law tradition and the Privy Council would be a very good final arbiter on the Second Amendment; especially since it doesn't have "skin" in the game.

Scalia was a poor choice to rewrite the constitution since he was biased toward "gun rights" and the Heller decision shows that he made some serious deviations in legal method, which violate the rule of law (e.g., failing to follow precedent, failing to look at the real legislative history, using secondary sources which were biased, etcetera). Add in that US judges are the products of the US legal education system.

An interesting concept, but the US is not a good candidate short of some drastic changes in culture.

The Constitution's Most Forgotten Amendment - 1000 Years in the Making

Yeah, but it comes in third, right after the other misunderstood Amendment (the Second). This ties in the mindset about the fear of standing armies and out of control military establishments.

There is way more evidence that the Constitution, Second, and Third Amendments relate to the common defence and the fear of standing armies than the private ownership of arms.

 

The 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | Think Again

This is pretty good, but I would guess that most people who would leave comments wouldn't have watched this: 

 The next video is a fairly decent explanation of Second Amendment case law, but it leaves out the issue of standing armies. Just remember the real issue was what form would the common defence take? A professional military or something like what Switzerland had. That is a small professional force for administration and training with the bulk of the forces being part timers.

That gets lost in the debate even though there is far more evidence that is what the issue was.

Toss in that the militia was pretty much a dead letter from the start.  The George Mason’s quote as recorded in the transcripts of the Virginia Ratifying Convention is a good confirmation of that:

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.”

Unfortunately, the exclusion was common in Mason's time, as my ancestor, a poor, Pennsylvania farm kid would attest. Dislike for the Militia was pretty much what killed it off, as this passage from Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890 (1833) points out:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

The Second Amendment died of desuetude long ago. Attempts to revive it only create an out of control monster.