Guest Post: The Supreme Court And Natural Law

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

The Supreme Court And Natural Law

I won a bet today.

A few weeks ago I wagered with a coworker that the United States Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare.  He reasoned that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force an individual to purchase a product from a private company.  My reasoning was much simpler.  Because the Supreme Court is a functioning arm of the state, it will do nothing to stunt Leviathan’s growth.  The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995—from the tail end of the New Deal through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—should have been proof enough.  He naively believed in the impartialness of politically-appointed judges.  For the first time he saw that those nine individuals are nothing more than politicians with an allegiance to state supremacy.

It was a tough but valuable lesson to learn.

As far as unintended effects are concerned, the economic justification for increased government regulation of the health care industry has been argued countless times up to this point.  Proponents of intervention are convinced that more bureaucracies, red tape, and central planning are the answer.  They have no knowledge of the pricing system and how it functions as the most efficient means through which consumers and producers can interact to come to an agreeable deal.  They don’t realize that the undersupply of doctors and care providers is a direct consequence of previous government intervention and occupational licensing.  Many actually believe that Obamacare wasn’t written by the insurance industry and isn’t a fascist-like appeasement of another deep pocketed lobbying campaign.

Common sense economics tells us that Obamacare will only lead to further inefficiencies and rationing as decisions of care continue to be made by third parties.  Once fully enacted, doctor offices will likely start resembling that of the waiting area of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.

All that aside, the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Affordable Care Act should serve as an eye opener to those who still believe the state exists as a protector of property and defender of the rule of law.

In the present day, the vast number of edicts coming from Washington can hardly be characterized as laws.  “But wait,” you may ask, “when legislation is passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ultimately approved by the Supreme Court, isn’t it now considered the law of the land?”  While it is certainly true that whatever scheme envisioned by the political class can be enforced by the state’s monopoly on violence, such rules of governance are more often than not laws in the traditional sense.

Historically, what was known as private or natural law rested upon the rational deduction of a set of ethically-based norms.  These norms focused on acts considered morally wrong such as assault, murder, rape, and violations of property in general.  Such aggressions were seen by classical liberal thinkers as detrimental to social cooperation.  According to 20th century legal scholar Edwin Patterson, the concept of natural law evolved from

Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law . . . and most natural law philosophers.

Or as Murray Rothbard wrote in his book The Ethics of Liberty:

The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State.

Positive law is the kind enacted by the state that bestows special privileges to specific individuals.  Whereas natural law is essentially negative in that it disallows for the violent treatment of others, state-sanctioned positive law is the granting of reward that is necessarily provided by confiscatory taxation or government coercion.

What the state, which is institutionalized predation and force, embodies is antithetical to natural law and the very belief that violence is morally repugnant.  To characterize the Supreme Court as some great upholder of the rule of law in spite of it being a pillar in the state apparatus is insulting to any decent person that has a basic understanding of justice.

In lieu of the upholding of the Affordable Care Act, it’s now worth asking what the U.S. government can’t do to Americans.  As of right now, a sitting president can call for the indefinite detainment and execution of both citizens and non citizens alike with no due process.  The band of thieves known as Congress can force the public to purchase a good or service and order its goons to read private communications without prior consent or knowledge.  The dollar is constantly inflated to the benefit of major financial institutions, thus destroying the purchasing power of the money Americans are forced into using.  The American people are no longer afforded their rights to their property, privacy, or own lives.  Those discretions are currently in the hands of the various marionettes of Washington.  Whether it is occupied by outright fascists or closet socialists, the state has no regard for liberty in its incremental quest for omnipotence.

As Ludwig von Mises spent his life expounding:

A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

In the world of centralized or constitutional government, rules are always made to be broken.  The irony in today’s Supreme Court decision is that it was never given the authority to strike down federal laws under the Constitution.  The power of “judicial review” was established by precedent in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and was not explicitly granted in the language of the Constitution.  As Lew Rockwell puts it, judicial review is a

Usurped power not present in the constitution. The anti-federalists had anticipated it, however, seeing it as just another of the viciously increased federal powers to be enabled by the new constitution as versus the far more libertarian Articles, which had been overthrown in the federalist coup at Philadelphia.

Many legal scholars argue that judicial review is an implied power.  If that were so, their logic can be applied to each and every blatantly unconstitutional law enforced by the federal government.  And as history has shown, this is precisely what has occurred as the Constitution’s purposefully vague language has been the cornerstone for growing Washington’s dominance over every aspect of civil society.

The upholding of Obamacare is just more evidence of the totalitarian jackboot that continues to be pressed down upon on America’s collective throat.  Instead of Congress or the President, it was the Supreme Court’s turn to pave the way toward serfdom.  In a truly free society, all forms of violence would be condemnable and worthy of legal recourse.  Men with badges and guns would receive no special treatment such as they do today.  Thieves would be thieves.  Murders would be murders.  Counterfeiters would be counterfeiters.  And mobsters would be mobsters.  Titles such as “President,” “Congressman,” “police officer,” or “central banker” would mean nothing under a functioning system of proper law.

To those who may object to natural or proper law, it may be asked “would you not defend your life or the lives of your loved ones against potential aggressors?”  For those who answer in the affirmative, they have rationally assumed their property is theirs to protect and their life and the lives of the innocent can be defended from coercion.  The only other option would be for a society where no property, including one’s own body, is to be justifiably owned.  The widespread practice of the latter tends to be enforced through brutal totalitarianism.  The former is the foundation for peace, justice, and prosperity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Debtonation's picture

When the dollar collapses and the states reassert their sovereignty, Obamacare will become null and void.

BarreraNorman70's picture

A frieend's mother makes $84 hourly on the computer. Just go to web link http://LazyCash9.Com ( For full information click home tab. Its not Scam check this link atleat once. You will get answer of all your question on home tab)

Clycntct's picture

Hey I got a friend who says fuck you!

Atomizer's picture

One day, your chain of lazyCash9 members will not get paid their $84/hr. Poof.. Hahahahahaahaha!



GMadScientist's picture

Consider this type of scam a tax applied only to people with poor critical thinking skills (as lotteries are to people with poor math skills).


Cadavre's picture

My dear dear fellow Terrorist Citizens and Denizens of what used to be OUR "Republic:, all I got to say is what Ford Fairlane, Private Eye to the Stars, always say a t times like this:

Heres to sucking my dick!

Never went to them Ivy League ZOG Mafia Madrassas myself, but skinny kink haired pasty bi-polar sweet 16 nose job twice piped chicks on the MSM TV variety stream sure get wet for a Harvard W2 prospect. Don't know why myself,  most bend over, and drop, on a dime, when someone anyone anywhere answers the call for, "8 inches or less?". Did have a tenure with a few MIT Mafioso "self tug jobs", and learned a very simple lesson: Ask a simple question, like, "What is the difference between a settlement date and an accrual date?", to a room of 30 MIT MBA slugs, and ya get 30 different farking answers.

But Harvard has turned, Harvard must be teaching that new age sissified form of "Fuck Me Quick Banker Ebonics", cause alleged graduates, or the soured seed inbreds hatched by fat cat alumnus got their dips and degs the old fashion way: Daddy  bought it or a preschool sibling played find the quarter with the prof, and instead, found, the prof's little bitty teeny weeny peeny!.

Must be behind the times, but never had an inkling that "Penatly" translated to "Tax". I guess we can all start writing off our late pay penalties, traffic fines and even the "tax" (and just scratch out that bothersome "penalty" word as written in the HR by our well festooned man juice dribbling Synogress)  when we don't buy no farking G-man insurance.

Quite a reach around, indeed,  by any standard:
1) No new taxes were pledged.
2) The word "tax" was not in the bill
2) Swap a few juicy ripe fat preschoolers with the Justices, and they'll rewrite the "bill" so Synogress sewer rats can claim "I didn't do it, honest."

So now we have a Synogress that have transferred their authority to the Prez the Supremie, and a Prez who assume the authority and anything anyone he want. Somebody oughta start a chronicle - cause this shit is gonna come to ruin fast and ya need to plan ahead.

If corporations are people, then people are corporations, right.

This ain't gonna end very nice - unless you think the climax to Tolkien's "Return of the King" was some kind of bridge game. Bitches has got to knoze thiere limitations.

Waffen's picture

So zerohedge just deleted about 50 posts from this thread. Hmmmmm.

Sean7k's picture

Why would ZH do this. One of the comments was mine. It was ordinary. This happened on a recent Bruse Krasting piece as well, pulled completely and all the comments.


Waffen's picture

notice they left the spammers post.


Sean7k's picture

It could have been the post regarding the Rothschilds. There were quite a few damaging quotes. This appears to be a recent behavior on the part of ZH.  

Oldballplayer's picture

What the fuck is a frieend?  And if its mother is a whore, whats the father?

Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Meeso hungry. Me feed you long time.

putaipan's picture

admiralty bitches! ..... you can't handle the natural law!

ejhickey's picture

you lie!  she makes more onher knees.

Ray1968's picture

States reassert sovereignty???? Wake up, Abraham Lincoln ensured that doesn't happen ever again.

Jack-booted paramilitary with drones and microwave skin-burning riot dispersing equipment will be deployed.

Dr. Engali's picture

The technology TPTB command is pretty daunting. But they've always had the technological upper hand in the past.Yet history is full of examples of that advantage being overcome.

cossack55's picture

Grab them by the belt buckle"

     Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap

A Lunatic's picture

Sad and true. The best we can do is assert our own sovereignty as individuals and refuse to "just go along" with whatever bullshit the Establishment decides is good for us. I'll be damned if I surrender to anymore State sponsored thuggery in ANY form. I do not look to the State or the agents thereof for any part of my health, safety, or well being and am quite capable of looking after my own interests with satisfactory results.

Ray1968's picture

Ironically the best form of rebellion is to join them (sort of). Just "tune in and drop out". Refuse to work. Refuse to feed the beast. Go off the grid. Eventually the whole system will collapse under its own weight.

They can't really punish you for playing their game.

A Lunatic's picture

It's not a game to me.................

GCT's picture

Ray a constitutional convention can still be held with 38 states and overturn this law.  The Supreme court would be null in void in this situation.  This will never happen, but it is still a valid way to change laws the fed decides to pass.   

Turin Turambar's picture

A Constitutional convention?  Are you crazy?  I can think of maybe a handful of people in whom I would have even a little bit of confidence rewriting/changing the constitution.  This would be madness.

Debtonation's picture

The states will reassert their sovereignty. The Federal Government couldn't fund a civil war even if it tried, it's costing us a fortune to fund wars already.  A collapsing dollar, no oil, loss of natural resources, it would be bad.  Someday freedom will live again in certain parts of present day America.  The US military won't support Obama, the military supports Ron Paul.  I would know, I'm a vetern myself.

CompassionateFascist's picture

 That peckerwood Lincoln "ensured" nothing. Let the urban Congoids "riot" and get fried. I/we have other...more organized...plans.  

GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

This may actually go down as the most brilliant opinion of the 21st century.

All is not what it seems. Lament not. So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, has been upheld substantively on Congress’s power to "tax".

Well at least this seemly minor side -dispute is over. It's now a matter of law and fact the PPACA contained a tax provision. I.e.  Revenue.

So what about procedurally? does anyone else recall the legislative history of this piece of legislation?


At least Read the first 4 pages of the opinion. On federalism. Tell me that at LEAST those pages are very agreeable. The first time in a long time you see references to founding fathers and citations to Federalist Papers in any court opinion, let alone on the Supreme Court.


Within the first page:

In our federal system, "the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder."


Does anybody know which chamber Represents the people and which the states in the contract that is the U.S. Constitution?

Is was originally designed to  be  the  House and Senate respectively.

And on the issue of the two chambers of Congress.

Who originated  PPACA, this ..Revenue Bill ? What chamber did it on Dec. 24 2009?

Article 1 Section 7.  Article 1 Section 7. Article 1 Section 7.

Waffen's picture

All meaningless pap. Who will challenge it? So you not recall how others laws were passed without proper ratification or procedure?

One example. The 14th amendment could not pass because they could not get 3/4ths of the state to ratify, with their post civil war duly elected governments. So how does it get passed? Martial law known as reconstruction, which uses the point of a gun to force the 14th amendment to pass by throwing out the legally elected state representatives. How is a point of a gun a legal binding contact or properly passed law?

It was also not properly proposed as 23 senators were unlawfully excluded from the senate which violates article 5.

They just break the rules when they want.

GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

I'm saying Roberts just set a brilliant trap.

To put it bluntly, he just snared some dumb old socialists dykes needing a majority and legal grounds to uphold their
authoritarian impulses embodied in Obamacare, and created springboard for a great claw-back of the commerce clause into its Constitutional box.

Read opinion. He get's brilliant a history about founders a
the importance Federalism, dual sovereignty, States rights, and a kick in nuts of the commerce clause.

Fundamental concepts to our Republic that can now be cited by EVERY lawyer in country.

He gets the dykes to expressly agree it is classified as a (tax and therefore revenue bill.

They one the battle but lost the war.

It originated in the Senate.

It's now open to being struck down as unconstitutional for violating Article 1 section.

It was done with the help of the dissent read page 25 of the dissent. They are begging the state attorneys to turn around and now challenge it on these grounds. They give them the case law argument facts to cite in their brief. Pg. 25.

nmewn's picture

"I'm saying Roberts just set a brilliant trap."

"To put it bluntly, he just snared some dumb old socialists dykes needing a majority and legal grounds to uphold their authoritarian impulses embodied in Obamacare, and created springboard for a great claw-back of the commerce clause into its Constitutional box."


From the majority opinion:

"If the individual mandate is targeted at a class, it is a class whose commercial inactivity rather than activity is its defining feature."

I'm agreeing with your assessment.

The inexornable expansion (of a percieved loop hole, the Commerce Clause) eventuating into "legal totalitarianism" has been slammed shut to any political majority.

This is no small thing. And this is a very good thing IMO.

And, the majority opinion states quite clearly...

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.  Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.

>>>It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."<<<

The SCOTUS (as an institution) has always given extreme deference to the political process...that is...elections, the will of the people.

They have also always took the laws created by Congress at face value...that is...they have always assumed (as a general rule) any law created by Congress was created without the intent of malice toward the people that will be governed by the laws created.

With the above in mind...and with only TWO questions being before the court to actually decide upon...he and the majority did what was "necessary and proper" said, the entirety of the new law amounted to a host of new taxes on the people and the "progressive" judges agreed.

Which it is...from tanning beds to pharma companies (which will be passed on to end users, you & I, the consumer) to HSA's to...well, just about everything.

Those who advocated for & passed ObamaTax have the ultimate responsibility now...defend it and themselves in the political arena...there is no Blue Team/Red Team now.

Its a tax on ALL the people.

El Oregonian's picture

If it was agreed upon that Obamacare's mandate is a TAX then how was it passed?  ONLY the House has the authority to generate taxes, not the Senate.

GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

That's the brilliance of it.

The issue of whether it should be struck down because under Article 1. Section 7 only the house can originate tax bills and this one was originated in the Senate was Not before the Court. They only rule on the issues argued before them. It wasn't thought to contain a "tax" until Obama's own attorneys argued that before Supreme Court and It was then ruled a tax as a matter of law.

Here This explains the basics why Obamacare is now open t to being struck down as a revenue bill that didn't originate in Senate.

Also with Court striking down the medicare expansion,(read that part too he admonishes the states to act like sovereigns and not get addicted to federal money printing)Obamacare now can't even work on a liberal academic"s chalkboard. One of the key planks is fallen.

Now the poor are going to get hit hardest by this "Tax" for for not being able to afford healthcare and will make for a perfect plaintiff to challenge the procedure under which the revenue law was passed as a violation of Article 1 Section 7.

And with this opinion we start moving to put the commerce clause back into its Constitutional box.

CompassionateFascist's picture

  Mr. V, U R an erudite moron, & Roberts is a slick shabbatz goy who sold himself to the Yid Gang of Four. Neither Obama nor Romney give a flying F about this fancy lawyer crap. For once, I entirely agree with Annie B, @ Just read it, all of it. And, mnewn, I am surprised at your foolishness. This "we lost, but we WON!" crap is right out of the neo-con playbook. Don't forget to wake me up when U get the Welfare/Illfare state "repealed" via the courts. It'll get repealed via Civil War. No other way.

nmewn's picture

"And, mnewn, I am surprised at your foolishness."

You can be surprised all you want. I'm not ready to start blowing shit up and killing my fellow countrymen over lying politicians.

Are you?

I'm willing to wait and see how many are really "foolish" come November.

The bill was a lie and a sham from start to finish. They didn't even read the damned thing. O'Barry had his "finger wagging in the camera moment" with George Stephanopolis and ball faced lied to ALL the American people saying it wasn't a tax...then he turned around and directed his own administration lawyers go before SCOTUS and argue that it is a tax. 

Thats some great Chicago style "constitutional scholarly" type work right there huh?

Now its up to ALL the people (who you want me to start killing for some reason) to decide if they can live with confirmed liars, insider trading before passing legislation, tax cheats (Geithner, Rangel etc.) and crony capitalists as their "leaders". 

This is the way its supposed to be done CF...this ain't Uganda quite yet ;-)

sadmamapatriot's picture

Who wants war? No one wants war. But it will take something big to change this. People did not rise in revolt after passgae of Federal Reserve Act, Social Security, or Medicare. They should have though and we are paying the consequences now. This ruling alone won't be enough. I believe it will be the economic collapse and everyone's ox getting gored at the same time to get people's attention. Also, collapse will wipe out banksters power (at least temporarily). But no election is going to fix this. Did you even listen to the Patrick Henry speech?


Vote Obamney 2012! He'll stop them and save us all.

Disenchanted's picture



Good for Annie B! And she's right about Romney too, if he is elected he'll do exactly squat about the ACA.


...and btw I told you bitchez SCOTUS would let it stand and not overturn it...I'd look up my post from a month or three ago and post the link, but it's such a pain in the ass now to track them down I'm just going to say fuck it.


oh and about this the other four 'conservative' justices are really pissed off at Roberts bullshit, just another dog and pony show scam.


It was a good week for the corporatacracy. or the CorpGov or whatever the fuck you'd like to call it.


How you Bushtards like his SCOTUS appointee Roberts now?  Let me guess...if we can just elect Romney we'll get an even better one. ROFLMAO.


oh and for you Obamanauts parading around acting like this was a great win for the people, you're just as fucking stupid. These Cults of Personality followers and political party loyalists make me want to puke...and I'm out.


enjoy your tyranny bitchez.

GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture


If the commerce clause is taken off the table as a source of power, thinking politically, all the socialists in Congress, instead of framing their power grabs as wonderful enlightened programs to help the public, now have to frame them as... taxes.

And every new program will have to have a TAX as base of congressional power to justify it's existence.

The sheep in this country don't pay attention to much but when you expressly mention the word "TAX" they come to attention, and it something they can understand.

It will be Full and open disclosure.

CompassionateFascist's picture

No, moron. As always, it'll be 1/2 tax, 1/2 debt financed. And the sheeple who think they're getting something for nothing will keep right on voting for it. "That's the beauty of it". In fact, since EVERYTHING gubmint does involves taxation, Roberts and the 4 kosher mafiosi effectively liquidated the Constitution; thanks to Roberts, the Reds don't even NEED the "commerce clause" any more. Again, see Ms. B's take at

LawsofPhysics's picture

Lots of things will become null and void at that point.  Hedge accordingly.

masterinchancery's picture

It probably won't last that long, but if it does, hyperinflation is certain, and probably martial law.

Timmay's picture

Uplifting article. I am beginning to wonder if Zerohedge is a psychops? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants??

Cypher was right, ignorance is BLISS.....

Western's picture

I've been telling people to go get informed in the law, because it is being used against the people through "assumed consent". -> Frank O'Collins does a great weekly talkshoe Q&A regarding restoration of natural law and fighting the Roman Cult trolls. Yes these trolls also control the financial system.

sgt_doom's picture

And another "wonderful" SCOTUS decision regarding human rights:

James Stanley, a career soldier, suffered soul murder as an Army lab rat. He was given LSD in 1958 without being warned of its dangers, as were 1,000 other "volunteer" soldiers.  Stanley suffered hallucinations, memory loss, incoherence, and a negative personality change. Fits of uncontrollable violence destroyed his family, and restricted his ability to earn a living. And he never knew why until 1975, when the Army invited him to participate in a follow-up study on "volunteers who participated" in LSD testing. In United States vs. Stanley,  the Supreme Court majority decided against Stanley’s claim for damages. However, Justices Brennan, Marshall and O’Connor dissented, asserting their belief that the Nuremberg Code’s standard of informed consent applies to soldiers as well as civilians. In 1996 James Stanley finally wrangled a $400,000 settlement from the government, but no apology for having ruined his life.

The Nazi human experimentation program rolled into the CIA's MK ULTRA program, whose goal was ultimately group mind control and the production of programmed assassins (review closely the Robert F. Kennedy assassination).  Just a small slice of MK ULTRA's victims list:


Stanley Glickman, Harold Blauer, James Stanley, Gail Kastner, Dorothy Proctor, Christine Bauman, Richard Carlson, Tony Vaitelis, Jean-Paul Martineau, the French people residing the village of Pont Saint Esprit in 1951, healthy American children in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, 1,000 "volunteer" soldiers, at least 23 women prisoners were also used as human guinea pigs, the Ottawa Citizen published an expose showing that hundreds of federal prisoners throughout Canada were used for pharmaceutical trials of untested drugs, sensory deprivation, and pain and electroshock studies, and unknown patients victimized by U.S. doctors injecting plutonium and uranium into unwitting hospital patients.

?An excellent site on this:


JeffB's picture

Unfortunately, we've had a lot of that type of thing.

It Can Happen Here - American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it. Their research was funded by the Federal Government. Twenty-four babies with spina bifida lost their lives.The experiment was declared a success.

Forced sterilizations -


In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

1936 Public domain. Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Nazi propaganda defends Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the United States as an ally in the eugenic movement, and its laws as proof of its status as same.

Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood, despite it's notoriously racist and eugenics roots, and rented space to medical companies that could dissect the babies they killed so they could sell the body parts. They've also been caught red-handed in helping to cover up child abuse, incest, statutory rape and human trafficking.

That's not taking into account that the abortionists are deliberately killing more innocent human beings every day than were killed in all of the 911 attacks combined. To keep up, the terrorists would have to pull off a 911 terrorist attack every day of the year including, weekends, holidays, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Christmas, Easter, Hannakuh, Ramadan, etc., etc. But even that wouldn't be enough, they would then have to do a grand finale of 6 more 911 equivalents on New Year's Eve so they could start of with a fresh slate on the 1st of the new year.

Our tax dollars at work.


Go Tribe's picture

Before this article I didn't realize there was a battle between "natural" and "positive" law. Now it makes sense. Obama said the constitution tells what government cannot do, but he wants it to tell what government can do. So he's a positive law guy. The severity of the turn he and his owners have made in the course of our government is about to drive us over a cliff and into the hard hands of authoritarians.

Disenchanted's picture


and they can just do things under the 'color of law'


color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

Dr. Engali's picture

I wonder that sometimes too. Is the Hedge just another program in the matrix? Is it an outlet for those who are libertarian minded and logical thinkers. Rush and Beck are an outlet for conservatives, and MSNBC, CNN is an outlet for liberals. The system allows them to exist for a purpose.They are programs to keep the serfs from actually engaging with each other and doing something. I certainly hope not.

fonzannoon's picture

"I would not say such things if I were you!"

Princess bride

fonzannoon's picture

I listen to people like Jim Rogers and Schiff talk Dr. Engali. I  know some people on here think they are part of the system somehow for the same reasons you stated. My personal belief is that once you subscribe to that there is no going back. There is no hope, no salvation and everyone at their core is evil. I can't go there. From another one of my favorite movies...

"I don't think you're quitting because you believe these things you say. I don't. I think you want to believe them, because you're quitting. And you want me to agree with you, and you want me to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right. It's all fucked up. It's a fucking mess. We should all go live in a fucking log cabin." But I won't. I don't agree with you. I do not. I can't."

Dr. Engali's picture

The problem I have is since awakening in 2001 I have found everthing I used to believe is a lie. And the further down the rabbit hole I go the more everything stinks. It's come to the point where I question everything and trust nothing. Not a fun place to some extent. The best I can do is try to determine the agenda of the individual providing information and decipher the truth myself.

But I hope , for sanities sake,that the people I think are truth tellers aren't part of the system.

fonzannoon's picture

What is different to me now is seeing things like the LIBOR stuff or the JPM stuff or even the fast and the furious stuff and realizing that they don't even have to hide it anymore. Corzine would prob be the best example. There are no consequences so this stuff is just done in plain sight.

My theory is this. Try to see things as best you can and trust in yourself. Look for those who do the same.

 Not to keep nailing you with quotes but this one is my all time favorite.

"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude after own own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."