This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

We've Gone from a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Powerful Men Making Laws in Secret

George Washington's picture




 

Preface: Some defendants are no longer allowed to see the "secret evidence" which the government is using against them. See this and this.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges can throw out cases because they don't like or believe the plaintiff ... even before anyone has had the chance to conduct discovery to prove their case.
In other words, judges' secret biases can be the basis for denying
people their day in court, without even having to examine the facts.
Judges are also becoming directly involved in politics with the other branches of government.

Claims of national security are being used to keep the shenanigans of the biggest banks an corporations secret, and to crush dissent.

But this essay focuses on something else: the fact that the laws themselves are now being kept secret.

America is supposed to be a nation of laws which apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or power.

Founded on the Constitution and based upon the separation of powers, we escaped from the British monarchy - a "nation of men" where the law is whatever the king says it is.

However,
many laws are now "secret" - known only to a handful of people, and
oftentimes hidden even from the part of our government which is supposed
to make laws in the first place: Congress.

The Patriot Act

Congress just re-authorized the Patriot Act for another 3 years.

However,
Senator Wyden notes that the government is using a secret
interpretation of the Patriot Act different from what Congress and the
public believe. Senator Wyden's press release of today states:

Speaking
on the floor of the U.S Senate during the truncated debate on the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT for another four years, U.S. Senator
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) – a member of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence -- warned his colleagues that a vote to extend the bill
without amendments that would ban any Administration’s ability to keep
internal interpretations of the Patriot Act classified will eventually
cause public outrage.

 

Known as Secret Law, the official
interpretation of the Patriot Act could dramatically differ from what
the public believes the law allows. This could create severe violations
of the Constitutional and Civil Rights of American Citizens.

 

***

 

I
have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for ten years, and I
don’t take a backseat to anybody when it comes to the importance of
protecting genuinely sensitive sources and collection methods. But the
law itself should never be secret – voters have a need and a right to
know what the law says, and what their government thinks the text of the law means,
so that they can decide whether the law is appropriately written and
ratify or reject decisions that their elected officials make on their
behalf.

As TechDirt points out:

 

It's not just the public that's having the wool pulled over their eyes. Wyden and [Senator] Udall are pointing out that the very members of Congress, who are voting to extend these provisions, do not know how the feds are interpreting them:

As
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have been provided
with the executive branch's classified interpretation of those
provisions and can tell you that we believe there is a significant
discrepancy between what most people - including many Members of
Congress - think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and what
government officials secretly believe the Patriot Act allows them to do.

***

By far the most important interpretation of what
the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S.
government and this interpretation is - stunningly -classified.

What
does this mean? It means that Congress and the public are prevented
from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the
official meaning of the law itself is secret. Most
members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal
interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and
do not have any staff who are cleared to read them.
Even if
these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these
interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor
without violating classification rules.

Here's Wyden's speech on the Senate floor.

The Surveillance State and Unauthorized Wars

Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald noted last week:

The
government's increased ability to learn more and more about the
private activities of its citizens is accompanied -- as always -- by an
ever-increasing wall of secrecy it erects around its own actions.
Thus, on the very same day that we have an extension of the Patriot Act
and a proposal to increase the government's Internet snooping powers, we have this:

 

The
Justice Department should publicly release its legal opinion that
allows the FBI to obtain telephone records of international calls made
from the U.S. without any formal legal process, a watchdog group
asserts.

 

***

 

The decision not to release the memo is noteworthy... By turning down the foundation's request for a copy,
the department is ensuring that its legal arguments in support of the
FBI's controversial and discredited efforts to obtain telephone records
will be kept secret.

What's
extraordinary about the Obama DOJ's refusal to release this document is
that it does not reveal the eavesdropping activities of the Government
but only its legal rationale for why it is ostensibly
permitted to engage in those activities. The Bush DOJ's refusal to
release its legal memos authorizing its surveillance and torture
policies was unquestionably one of the acts that provoked the greatest
outrage among Democratic lawyers and transparency advocates (see, for
instance, Dawn Johnsen's scathing condemnation of the Bush administration for its refusal to release OLC legal reasoning: "reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy"
and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal
interpretations by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and
legislative branches of government."

 

The way a
republic is supposed to function is that there is transparency for
those who wield public power and privacy for private citizens. The
National Security State has reversed that dynamic completely, so that
the Government (comprised of the consortium of public agencies and
their private-sector "partners") knows virtually everything about what
citizens do, but citizens know virtually nothing about what they do
(which is why WikiLeaks specifically and whistleblowers generally, as
one of the very few remaining instruments for subverting that wall of
secrecy, are so threatening to them). Fortified by always-growing
secrecy weapons, everything they do is secret -- including even the "laws" they secretly invent to authorize their actions -- while everything you do is open to inspection, surveillance and monitoring.

 

This
dynamic threatens to entrench irreversible, absolute power for reasons
that aren't difficult to understand. Knowledge is power, as the
cliché teaches. When powerful factions can gather unlimited
information about citizens, they can threaten, punish, and ultimately
deter any meaningful form of dissent ...

 

Conversely, allowing government officials to shield their own conduct from transparency and (with the radical Bush/Obama version of the "State Secrets privilege")
even judicial review ensures that National Security State officials
(public and private) can do whatever they want without any detection and
(therefore) without limit or accountability. That is what the
Surveillance State, at its core, is designed to achieve: the destruction
of privacy for individual citizens and an impenetrable wall of secrecy
for those with unlimited surveillance power. And as these three
events just from the last 24 hours demonstrate, this system -- with
fully bipartisan support --- is expanding more rapidly than ever.

 

***

 

So patently illegal is Obama's war in Libya as of today that media reports are now coming quite close to saying so directly; see, for instance, this unusually clear CNN article today from Dana Bash.
As a result, reporters today bombarded the White House with questions
about the war's legality, and here is what happened, as reported by ABC News' Jake Tapper:

 

 

 

Talk
about "secret law." You're not even allowed to know the White House's
rationale (if it exists) for why this war is legal.
It simply
decrees that it is, and you'll have to comfort yourself with that.
That's how confident they are in their power to operate behind their
wall of secrecy: they don't even bother any longer with a pretense of
the most minimal transparency.

Secret Memos

Secret laws are not a brand new problem.

As I've previously noted:

Scott Horton - a professor at Columbia Law School and writer for Harper's - says
of the Bush administration memos authorizing torture, spying,
indefinite detention without charge, the use of the military within the
U.S. and the suspension of free speech and press rights:

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.

Yale law professor Jack Balkin agrees, writing that the memos promoted "reasoning which sought, in secret, to justify a theory of Presidential dictatorship." Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says that the memos are the "very definition of tyranny". And former White House counsel John Dean says "Reading these memos, you've gotta almost conclude we had an unconstitutional dictator."

State of Emergency Cuts the Constitutional Government Out of the Picture

As I wrote in February:

The United States has been in a declared state of emergency
from September 2001, to the present. Specifically, on September 11,
2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared
state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:

A
national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the
World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the
continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW,
THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that
the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . .

That
declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect
from 9/11 to the present. President Bush kept it in place, and
President Obama has also.

***

On September 10, 2010, President Obama declared:

Section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides
for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to
the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in
the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating
that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary
date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal
Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with
respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September
11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

 

The
terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of
a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined
that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010,
the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

Simply
by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush
activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing
him to impose censorship and martial law.

***

Continuity of Government ("COG") measures were implemented on 9/11. For example, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, at page 38:

At
9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House
Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to
Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C.

***

The Washington Post reported in March 2002 that "the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution." The same article goes on to state:

Assessment of terrorist risks persuaded the White House to remake the program as a permanent feature of 'the new reality, based on what the threat looks like,' a senior decisionmaker said.

As CBS pointed out,
virtually none of the Congressional leadership knew that the COG had
been implemented or was still in existence as of March 2002:

Key
congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had
established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian
managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure
that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack
on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday
editions.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told
the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role,
location or even the existence of the shadow government that the
administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.

Among
Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert
(Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became
incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said
they were not sure whether they knew.

Aides to Sen. Robert C.
Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro
tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.

Similarly, the above-cited CNN article states:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Friday he can't say much about the plan.

"We
have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government
or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and
when they would kick in, but we look forward to work with the
administration to get additional information on that
."

 

Indeed,
the White House has specifically refused to share information about
Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of
the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security
clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.

Specifically,
in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland
Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on
COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott warned:

If
members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their
right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems
of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would
seem to be failing.

 

To put it another way, if
the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity
of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

Indeed, continuity of government plans are specifically defined to do the following:

***

  • Those within the new government would know what was going on. But
    those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers
    of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what
    was happening
  • Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums
  • The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government

See this, this and this.

***

In
2007, President Bush issued Presidential Directive NSPD-51, which
purported to change Continuity of Government plans. NSPD51 is odd
because:

Beyond
cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military
troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a
disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any ‘other condition.’
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public
airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law
without hearings or public debate.

 

So continuity of government laws were enacted without public or even Congressional knowledge, and neither the public or even Congress members on the Homeland Security Committee - let alone Congress as a whole - are being informed of whether they are still in effect and, if so, what laws govern.

Postscript: Postscript: As I've repeatedly noted, economics, politics and law are inseparable and intertwined. As Aristotle pointed out
thousands of years ago, "The only stable state is the one in which all
men are equal before the law." Without the rule of law, the state
crumbles, and the government bonds and other investments crumble with
it.

As I wrote last year:

What's the hole that is swallowing up the economy? The failure to follow the rule of law.

The rule of law is what provides trust in our economy, which is essential for a stable economy.

 

The rule of law is the basis for our social contract. Indeed, it is the basis for our submission to the power of the state.

 

We
are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. That's what humanity
has fought for ever since we forced the king to sign the Magna Carta.

Indeed, lawlessness - the failure to enforce the rule of law - is dragging the world economy down into the abyss.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:25 | 1320639 blindman
blindman's picture


Peter Sellers: A Hard Day's Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEMncv140s
.
Peter Sellers - She loves you (German version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iY6rpHjfA&NR=1
.
The Doomsday Machine in Dr. Strangelove
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE
.
but this is the one.
dr. strangelove - survival plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0&NR=1

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:07 | 1318028 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

The cabal of criminally insane sociopaths who engineered 9/11, world financial crisis, unjustified wars without end (genocide) and the overthrow of our American Democracy are Fascist in full control of our destiny. The Fascist cabal manages to stay in control of government by using threats, secrets, lies and propaganda disinformation to avoid justice and their prosecution for Treason.

 

One hope is for the Joint Chefs of Staff in the military to declare martial law and arrest the traitors in government and then systematical restore our American Democracy. The other solution is revolution, the sooner the better.

 

Normal people should not try to rationalize the reasoning of other people who are criminally insane. Soon, it will be a crime to even criticize the criminals in charge and it will be the normal people who will be arrested and put away; the Fascist criminal tyranny will continue to reign with secrecy, lies, fear and terror.

 

Think of the millions of soldiers who sacrificed their lives for our American Democracy on Memorial Day. We can’t let our soldiers down today who are dead and dying for the continuation of our Democracy and Freedom which has already been overthrown by the Fascist and is dead.

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:06 | 1318026 blindman
blindman's picture


speaking of making laws .....
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-to-beat-market-fo...
.
How to Beat the Market: Follow the Trades of 19 Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee Who Own Stocks on Prohibited List

Want to beat the market? Here's how: Take the investment picks of Congress.

A reader sent me an email from Stansberry & Associates, that purports to do just that:

In a new academic study, four university professors examined investment results on more than 16,000 stock transactions made by 300 House delegates from 1985 to 2001. The result was clear: They beat the market by an average of 0.55% per month, around 6.6% a year. The professors note a previous study showed members of the U.S. Senate did so well they outperformed hedge funds.

In fact, if members of Congress didn't beat the market, they'd be bigger morons than you already think they are. Why? Because insider trading laws don't apply to members of Congress…

You heard that correctly. The Securities and Exchange Act does not apply to members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Congressional ethics rules say Congressional members aren't allowed to use privileged information for personal gain. But it's just a rule, not a law. It's not legally enforceable. And it's obvious they're taking excess profits out of the stock market…

This must be one of the most underreported financial stories of the century. Take one example: The Senate Armed Services Committee forbids staff and presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation from owning securities in more than 48,000 companies that contract with the Defense Department.

But 19 of the 28 senators on that same committee held assets worth between $3.8 million to $10.2 million in companies on the prohibited list between 2004 and 2009.
19 Senators Own Stocks on Prohibited List

The "new" academic study referenced by Stansbury and Associates is Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The data isn't new. The data is from 2001, as the email even states.

The email goes on to say that "19 of the 28 senators on that same committee held assets worth between $3.8 million to $10.2 million in companies on the prohibited list between 2004 and 2009".

That is new, at least to me, but is it really new news? I will return to that question in a moment. First consider this question ...

Should Insider Trading Laws Even Exist?

My answer: It is debatable whether there should even be insider trading laws, but if such laws should exist at all, the one place they should be just happens to be the one and only place they are not: Congress.

For a nice discussion on my answer above, please consider Robert Murphy's article Is Insider Trading Really a Crime?

Where's the Beef?

Returning to the forwarded email, please note that the allegations regarding "19 of 28 senators".

Who are those senators? You may prefer that phrased as a question we have not heard for a while, "Where's the Beef?"

While pondering "Where's the Beef?", I point you to The Daily Crux article Disgusting rules allow Congress to profit from insider trading

... I also told you on Tuesday how famous investors like Bruce Berkowitz and John Paulson were taking advantage of the government's heavy-handed regulation and backstopping of the financial system.

Well, Berkowitz and Paulson are late to the party. They've got nothing on Amy Friend, the chief counsel to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd. At the height of the crisis, when the government was making plans to bail out AIG and other large financial institutions, Friend bought $1,000 to $15,000 stakes in Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Bank bonds, and Fannie Mae debt.

Friend bought FHLB and Fannie Mae debt in June and July 2008, just days before President Bush signed a bill that gave the government housing finance agencies big cash injections from the Treasury. Friend is still in the game today, helping to draft Dodd's sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system.

If you or I did what Friend is doing, we'd wind up like Martha Stewart. But for her, Senate rules say it's perfectly legal. No SEC investigation. No insider trading violation.
Martha Stewart went to jail. Senatorial insider trading is ignored." ......
...
“Insider trading laws don’t apply to members of Congress.”
http://maxkeiser.com/2011/05/27/insider-trading-laws-dont-apply-to-membe...
.
Mike | May 27, 2011 at 10:11 am |

This is SOP with politicians:
1. Buy stock in your buddy’s company.
2. Make a law that forces everyone to buy their product.
3. Outlaw competing products (optional).
4. Profit.

Examples: Naked-body scanners, health insurance, CFLs, etc.

Mon, 05/30/2011 - 01:12 | 1321888 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

Thanks blindman  for the no brainer on where to invest. When I did invest in the stock market that was my key to entry—follow the inside trading, specifically how the congress members invest on inside information. The lobbyist that corrupt them, will never lead the dope congress members on a bad investment, it is part of their “how to be successful plan” that makes congress members millionaires. I dropped out of investing in the stock market years ago.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 08:47 | 1384494 forexskin
forexskin's picture

mark...

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:05 | 1318020 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Yeah GW but loads of pr*cks like you on ZH voted for this in 2008.

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 16:22 | 1321028 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Anyone here, that cast a ballot for Obama, knowing his records of NO votes, and Absent, and anti Second Amendment status, should be castrated, or given a lobotomy.

Due diligence applies especially to your Fuerher.

McCain any better?,HELL yes, at least he cares for America.Plus the Nat'l debt would not be the destroyer it has become under the GOP leadership.

Libs are all for it, the Conservatives, would make life miserable for McCain's ass(and he would at least listen).

Owhamma,could care less about anyone except his nuclear family.(and all of Islam).

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 18:10 | 1318309 knowless
knowless's picture

do you honestly think mccain would have been better? would he have reeled in the banks after his own party allowed bush to start tarp? seriously, did you miss the last decade? obama is horrible, sure, but i voted for kodos.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:57 | 1318007 Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

How do we even know that the old government is anything but a facade behind which the new is operating? The first indication one might have is when so many people are taken away in the night that it becomes noticable a large crowd has disappeared to camps or graves.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 18:16 | 1318319 knowless
knowless's picture

man, it would be too obvious if people started disappearing. they tried to disappear muslims under bush and there was outcry. they aren't going to come for you as long as the economy looks up, because the majority will willingly write you off as a wingnut.

all they will do is force you into a desperate situation, then (they hope) you will lash out. once you lash out you get branded with a record, and they can safely sequester you into homelessness and oblivion.

now if the economy looks down.. totally different story, people get desperate, and those victimised can no longer be heard as easily over the herds panicked bleating.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:14 | 1318041 George Washington
George Washington's picture

The big boys have become sophisticated in perception management, so it won't be this obvious:


Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:44 | 1317963 SwingForce
SwingForce's picture

Phone calls? If you still use a phone, well, try Skype or Google.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 15:26 | 1319614 Orly
Orly's picture

For real?

Are you for real?

Ha!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:42 | 1317955 TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

Perhaps a civilizations' demise begins when it replaces its foundation of moral absolutes with moral relativism. The ability to rationalize behaviors that were previously thought of as reprehensible become almost intoxicating and acts much like a cancer. The little white lie that seemingly hurts no one can lead to a spiraling of moral deconstruction and probably doesn't end until those behavior as committed by others affects them.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:41 | 1317954 Antarctico
Antarctico's picture

This was a particularly good article.  For my own education a few months back, I did a good amount of research into Continuity of Government plans and this piece did not miss a beat. Really, good stuff, but stuff that will give you nightmares.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:15 | 1317872 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

and 2 people stepped up to help file suit against the U.S. Government for breech of the Constitution.. for training the U.S. Army to Engage U.S. Citizens!

 

2 people.. all of you long winded pussies!

 

change? change what? your panties? fucking hot air cowards!

 

**************************************************************

 

I need an esquire to File Suit in Federal Court Against the U.S. Government.. more over the President of the United States of America. Pro Bono in the name of Fight Club!

 

The Law Suit is for breach of the Constitution for bringing home the U.S. Army and now Training the U.S. Army to operate Against "We the People".

 

Who wants to get some T.V. face time for themselves and for Tyler here.. we want warm bodies to educate we have to up our visible profile.

 

I am looking for feedback and ideas to make as big a splash as possible! so if you have something that will help, speak up! even if you think its small! speak up! every little thing matters and helps! SO PLEASE!!! Speak Up!

 

*************************************************************

I posted that everywhere yesterday! fucking long winded dick sucking fucking chatroom heros!

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 15:25 | 1319613 Orly
Orly's picture

You got many, many responses, JW. I know because I was there.

What they told you is the simple truth, though you care not to hear it.

You cannot sue the Federal government.  Period.

End of story.

Anyone of those "saviours" you hired are simply blowing blue smoke up your ass.  I would watch out for them and their "advice," if I were you.

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:12 | 1320614 Kayman
Kayman's picture

JW

You are conceeding to a loss, IF you could sue the government.  They will stall, obfuscate, divert, lie, withhold, propagandize you into defeat 10 years down the road.  Your pockets will be inside out and everyone on the other side will benefit from "billable hours".

Sueing the government is a mugs game.

A third party or getting the word out to discourage individual or collective debt, will starve the beast.

Points for trying though.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:08 | 1317825 11b40
11b40's picture

The way it looks from here is, it's the MAJORITY on the Roberts court we need to fear most.  These men are Facist pure & simple.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:50 | 1317770 blindman
blindman's picture


men.
sometimes competent to recognize law,
never to make it. the language of the
law is not the law but an interpretation
and attempt at articulating greater truth,
truth that is always beyond the domain of
man's idea of himself, what he believes he
is. it is literally beyond a man to make
a law, beyond a group of men to make a law.
but, a man may be able to recognize the principles
by which the world functions and articulate
them. recognizing a law or set of connected laws.
.
a group of men may sometimes be able to better
make these recognitions
but sometimes it takes one solitary mind.
unfortunately today we accept that any jackass
with connections to the treasury can be god
and can reconfigure the universe to his liking,
if not literally then symbolically, and the rest,
the lesser sheep need to follow?
and we don't even know the names of the authors
of these man made "laws", where they came from?
our representatives do not even read them, cannot
read them or comprehend them due to volume and complexity.
lack of expertise. the situation is a tragic and fluid farce.
we may be fucked by our own infinite stupidity.
break out i say. stop grazing with the sheep in the
pastures of the imbeciles.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:43 | 1317743 JR
JR's picture

 

Remember those political party nominating conventions where a state chairman stood to announce “Mr. Chairman, the Sovereign State of Texas gives all of its votes to…”? Sovereign? What a joke. There is no such thing… And the latest example :

From The Hill’s Transportation Report (05/25/11):

Texas state lawmakers have shelved a bill to outlaw controversial airport pat-downs.

“The legislation, which would have made it illegal for Transportation Security Administration agents to perform hand searches at airport security checkpoints unless there was probable cause, was approved by the Texas House. 

“But the U.S. attorney general's office threatened to cancel flights to Texas if the bill passed, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported this week, and that was enough to give Texas senators cold feet. …

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/163343-texas-tsa-pat-...

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 15:38 | 1320947 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Utah filed the same threat.

If enough states did likewise, it would bring the nation to it's knees.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:41 | 1317725 Dapper Dan
Dapper Dan's picture

          The Theory and Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism

                             By Emmanuel Goldstein

                                  From Chapter 3 

                                    War Is Peace

others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under water, or an airplane as independent of its base as a sailing ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun's rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometers away in space. or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth's center.

 

George Orwell wrote this in 1949,  He was quite prescient.

Think haarp, predator, and GBU-28

 

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:37 | 1317720 fonestar
fonestar's picture

I have pondered this conundrum as such, in a civil society, especially a welfare-state, does the legislative branch of government in fact, ensure the ultimate demise of that civilization?  What I mean to say is, that without legislating more (usually spurious to completely useless) new laws that entire branch of government serves no purpose.  As problems tend not to fix themselves in most cases, the system is therefore forced to bloat itself to death at the expense of the goods and services sector of the economy?

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 15:33 | 1320941 DosZap
DosZap's picture

The SCOTUS (IMHO) is the most important branch, once they start(and they have) interpreting the Const thru their views, and not going back to the original meaning..............WE'RE screwed.

EO's, and PDD's are the worst,EO's do not even(should not carrry any weight on the country), they were designed for the Chief  Executive to run that branch.

Not the entire country.

Eisenhower warned us, our fathers paid no attention.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:28 | 1317690 g
g's picture

Wow, the sheeple don't even care, or at least not enough to cause changes. Damnable.

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 15:26 | 1320915 DosZap
DosZap's picture

g,

You sir  are correct.

90% do not care.

It's like Cancer.If YOU don't have it, you could care less(maybe empathetic,but ambivalent),if someone else does.

You get it, and you damn well care then.

Nothing will change until the bulk of this shit rains on the masses.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:02 | 1318017 unnamed enemy
unnamed enemy's picture

actually they do care - as evidenced by this thread. but there arent any viable alternatives left for the sheeple.

what would you suggest we do - call out congresman? lol

or take to the streets and fight the cops ?

vote maybe?

if you could do anything to change things you would be dead already, or in jail if you are lucky.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:58 | 1318011 unnamed enemy
unnamed enemy's picture

actually they do care - as evidenced by this thread. but there arent any viable alternatives left for the sheeple.

what would you suggest we do - call out congresman? lol

or take to the streets and fight the cops ?

vote maybe?

if you could do anything to change things you would be dead already, or in jail if you are lucky.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:23 | 1317641 GottaBKiddn
GottaBKiddn's picture

 

Has anyone seen Robin Hood and his merry band, hangin' out somewhere?

He might need a little help. Just sayin'.

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:19 | 1317635 Whatta
Whatta's picture

In case someone hasn't read the following yet...

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

And I hear on the lunchtime news today TX Guv Rick Perry is considering running for Prez....wunnerful, a fascist Pigboy Prez would be a perfect fit. Among other things Gov Rick has:

-secretly cut deals with foreign companies for the Trans Texas Corridor, and reserved concession rights to the State, bypassing local community interest...iow, putting state interest aligned with private enterprise. And it would have been the largest State land grab in history.

-fast-tracked power plants with NO public input allowed

-unilaterally decided TX schoolgirls should get vaccinated with Gardisil.

He got his ass handed to him over the above issues when the public became aware...yet we reelected him! He would make a swell president

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:00 | 1317812 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

The sheeple liked the government gravy Perry poured on their mashed potatoes as he sized up their loins.

Besides, interns without HPV means his chance of throat cancer goes down.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:17 | 1317624 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

Moral Hazard Bitchez !

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:11 | 1317588 Racer
Racer's picture

 Saddam, Osama, Bush, Obama, Benanke they are all the same. Control the people and keep them as slaves, just Bush and Obama and the ChairSatan don't kill so openly

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:12 | 1317583 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

This is a good post, GW, but really, predatory jurisprudence (at the federal level) has been going on for over 35 to 40 years at least, coupled with concentrated predatory legislation from congress over the past 15 or so.

Thomas Linzey, one of a few public service attorneys out there, has long and brilliantly explained the concepts of predatory jurisprudence.

We can see such back in the '70s, when the credit bureaus were exempted from slander and libel laws, so they could be used by the corporations and super-rich when it came to targeting people by screwing their credit ratings, or simply running a side business with people forever paying them to remove untrue remarks and gossip from their credit records.

In 1978, with the Rehnquist Supreme court, they dumped all the mentally ill out on the streets with a major decision of theirs, and it's only gotten worse since, with the recent two horrendous decisions, privatizing eminent domain with that Connecticut-Pfizer developers case back in 2005, and the recent Citizens United drivel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowKoNmODNY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgn7mlsb5gE

http://talesofchange.org/2010/02/thomas-linzeys-new-book-is-be-the-change-how-to-get-what-you-want-in-your-community.html

http://www.celdf.org/

News nobody bothered to print:

Meredit Attwell Baker, in the news as the former FCC commissioner, finding in favor of the Comcast deal then vamoosing it to work for Comcast, is the daughter of James Baker, long-time legal counsel for the Bush family, former advisor to President Geo. H.W. Bush, and later his secretary of state.

James Baker occupied an office in President Geo. W. Bush's White House in the aftermath of 9/11/01 in order to defend Saudi Arabia from lawsuits.

Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is a Mellon family descendant.  (Now why hasn't anyone ever published that?????)

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:06 | 1317552 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

 

The Supine Court is a disgrace, as is the majority of the Judicial branch of government.

The Executive and Legislative branches of government have lost legitimacy by repeatedly selling out the Constitution and The People for power and mammon.

The majority of U.S. citizens are indentured servants ruled by money-changers and equivocating lawyers in the pockets of the money-changers.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:59 | 1317543 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

Well said. Bravo...

The problem is quite simple...

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:53 | 1317497 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Ignorant biased piece without any merit whatsoever.

Unauthenticated specious garbage indistinguishable from rank conjecture.

This embarrassing attempt at journalism leaves much room for improvement, and falls woefully short of the minimum acceptable standards of writing that readers here are accustomed to.

Try again.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:44 | 1317747 fonestar
fonestar's picture

I smell a stooge Smokey1.  You're the type who tries to piss down our leg and tell us it's raining.

Keep hackin' away at that keyboard for your federal cheese and enjoy it while you can.  Your day's are numbered stooge!

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 15:19 | 1319605 Orly
Orly's picture

They're called "trolls," by the way.

Don't feed the trolls.

:D

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:34 | 1317714 Arnolds Love Child
Arnolds Love Child's picture

Give it a rest. You've lost. No future in being a professional junk magnet.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:35 | 1317708 Braindonor1
Braindonor1's picture

"This embarrassing attempt at journalism leaves much room for improvement, and falls woefully short of the minimum acceptable standards of writing that readers here are accustomed to."

So how about you write an essay and submit it to ZH?

It's easy to criticize and offer nothing in return and even easier when you use lines written for you by someone else.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:17 | 1318049 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

I am perfectly capable of submitting a Pulitzer Prize-worthy article for Tyler's consideration.

The reason I refrain is because it would go over the heads of mongoloid douchebags like you, in much the manner of American Airlines.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 07:21 | 1319071 Rick64
Rick64's picture

 Never have I read any facts posted by you to refute anything in GW's posts. You seem to be capable only of verbal abuse which convinces no one.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:18 | 1317608 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Unauthenticated specious garbage indistinguishable from rank conjecture.

 

 

Guess you didn't read the Senators discussion(article) on the net huh?.

A link to the article was posted here yesterday..........

 

The Senator was quoted and said the exact same thing as written here.

 

Bottom line, you just do not want to believe the truth.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:05 | 1317563 JamesBond
JamesBond's picture

A D- Middle School essay at best.....

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:43 | 1317449 Hannibal
Hannibal's picture

Secret secrecy, all for Your protection of course. Vive la Revolucion!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:38 | 1317437 Kayman
Kayman's picture

A nation of laws, not a nation of justice.

Whoever first stated "ignorance of the law is no excuse" had no idea of the proliferation of laws, conflicting laws, self-serving laws, and parasitical legal monster that was fed on this sop.

"The law is a ass". S. Clemens

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:50 | 1317476 FWM
FWM's picture

Great Quote some of you will know:

 

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!