Header Image (book)


Monday, June 27, 2022

Government Giveth, Government Taketh Away

Silverfiddle Rant!

"A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away"
- President Gerald Ford

I have problems with language like this...
"Yet, even as the court continued to forge new ground in creating a private sphere where Americans could do as they pleased in their family life without undue government interference..."
I don't blame the writer. She is simply echoing the mindset of government and judges that has prevailed for over a century: That government must carve out spaces and create new rights for us. That mindset contradicts the US Constitution and the philosophy behind it, which hold that these rights and spaces flow from natural law, preexist any written document, and may not be infringed by government.   

This unconstitutional mindset can be summed up as...

Rights come from government, so a person must seek permission from government to do something.  If challenged, that permission must be found in the constitution.

That's ass backwards. The Constitution constitutes the government, telling it what it can and cannot do. Our individual rights are unenumerated and many and do not flow from that document. 

A Constitutional Mindset...

The question is not whether a black man may marry a white woman, or whether someone has a right to contraception.  This starts a game of "where can we find that right in the constitution?"  

Rather, the question should be, where in the constitution does it allow a government to infringe upon such a fundamental right?

What say you? 



  1. I want to point out that the people forcing this debate are unglued commies. The numbers of people who support abortion in general include many like myself who want it in the first trimester only. The notion this is some type of sacrament or that it is high on my list of concerns is absurd.

    Off the top of my head the economy, border, environmental extremism, military readiness

    You are going see violence that dwarfs anything imagined on January 6. Just lefties behaving criminally and they are never punished. Conspire with the Democrats and the media against a President the elites dont like no penalties.


    1. It has been raised to the level of a sacrament. Excellent analogy.

      I've pored over writing in opposition to this decision, and none are rooted in the law or the constitution, save for hinging the opposition on stare decisis, which means they don't really give a hoot about the constitution.

      The monomaniacal fixation on abortion is disturbing.

    2. Beak, i'm very curious about the time limits on abortion, particularly when the anti-abortion people say that "it's a BABY!" but it's okay to kill it at 3 weeks.... ?? Honestly, I'm torn on the time issue but am curious about what I see as a kind of dichotomy.

    3. Z,
      the anti-abortion people say that "it's a BABY!"

      Not all anti-abortion take that position. Some, including Christians, believe that a fetus is not a baby until quickening (heartbeat).

    4. Z, opinion polls consistently reveal most Americans have a nuanced view: Allow it the first trimester, ban it the third trimester, with exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother.

      If Republicans at the national level overplay their hand and campaign on a total federal ban, they will lose election.

      Laws have to be in line with the will of the people, and laws rarely change people's minds.

      I tell my Christian friends (and my fiery anti-abortion wife) that the abortion battle will not be won with laws; it can only be won by changing hearts and minds.

    5. (((Thought Criminal)))June 27, 2022 at 8:27:00 PM CDT

      Here come the determinists, determined to beat your free will from you or at least make you pay dearly for it. Pity them. They have no choice.

  2. I think you miss the writer's point, it's not about government granting rights etc., it's about balancing competing parties' rights. The obvious context here is abortion, where the pro-life lobby wants the government to intercede on behalf of the embryonic baby whose rights oppose the woman's rights. Your impatience with the idea that children's rights should be protected to any extent at all against the free exercise of their parents' liberty, would surely imply the most extreme pro-choice position imaginable.

    1. I don't know how you read any of that into anything I wrote. I'm making a natural law argument.

      Abortion does indeed involve competing rights, which is why it is so contentious.

      Most pro-choicers refuse to even entertain the notion that the baby in the womb has any rights to anything.

      Many pro-lifers refuse to distinguish between firmly-held religious beliefs (I myself am pro-life) and law down through the ages. If we look to Blackstone and beyond, there were always exceptions of varying degree.

      But back to my main point. My futile lament is the mindset that must look for my rights somewhere in the Constitution.

      There is no right in there for me to sit in my home and eat broken glass, but I absolutely have the right to do it, and nowhere does the constitution charge the government with entering people's personal spaces and injuncting their behavior if its not harming others or violating the rights of others.

    2. @SF - A huge part of the problem is that we don't teach Civics anymore. We teach entitlement and emotion. This is why we have adult Americans spouting such nonsense as they have Right to "feel safe" or "be happy", or whatever emoting propels them at the moment.

      ......and nowhere does the constitution charge the government with entering people's personal spaces and injuncting their behavior if its not harming others or violating the rights of others.

      And why isn't this carved in stone at the entrance to both Houses of Congress? Why isn't this read aloud before either Chamber before casting votes on a Bill? Why aren't real Journalists reminding elected representatives this each and every time they appear on a sock puppet cable news show?

      Rhetorical, I know. But honestly, the Abortion debate is merely the tip of the dirty iceberg. We've long ago surrendered the notion that you cite above.

    3. The government has no obligation to subsidize research into better abortifacients and machinery for performing "safe" abortions and contraceptives either... but it does. It has no obligation to research sex change operation procedures, but it does. It , in fact, does everything in its' power to subvert "natural law"... because there is no such thing as "nature".

      Daedalus will invent and Icarus will fall. As for me...

    4. Remove "Nature" from "Natural Law"... and all you are left with is "Law". And THAT is where we're headed if we continue to proceed upon this path.

    5. ps - And I doubt that the "type" of Law that prevails generally will be "Contract Law".

    6. Welcome to the Faustian Anthropocene Era.

    7. The Constitution, much like every philosopher's stone, is drifting... and will continue to drift, and shift, through both subtle and not-so-subtle re-definitions.

    8. "Originalism" merely slows the pace of change.

    9. ...and the changes are usually in the direction of opposites.

    10. @SF: I'm commenting on the Bower article you linked and quoted. I think you misconstrued her: I interpret the "private sphere where Americans [can] do as they [please]" as a reference to a demand for absolute superiority of parental rights over children's rights, not the constitutional source of either set of rights.

      @CI: Of all the deficiencies in my preperation for adulthood, the most deeply scarring is my emotional inarticulacy. Is there a way to champion a solid shared understanding of civics without denigrating emotion?

    11. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".... can you spell "intersectionality"?

    12. All this may seem an enormous platitude, but, if it is true, this is, of course, what ultimately refutes utilitarianism and what makes Hegel and Marx such monstrous traitors to our civilisation. When, in the famous passage, Ivan Karamazov rejects the worlds upon worlds of happiness which may be bought at the price of the torture to death of one innocent child, what can utilitarians, even the most civilised and humane, say to him? After all, it is in a sense unreasonable to throw away so much human bliss purchased at so small a price as one--only one--innocent victim, done to death however horribly--what after all is one soul against the happiness of so many? Nevertheless, when Ivan says he would rather return the ticket, no reader of Dostoevsky thinks this cold-hearted or mad or irresponsible; and although a long course of Bentham or Hegel might turn one into a supporter of the Grand Inquisitor, qualms remain.

      Isaiah Berlin, "Letter to George Kennan" (1951)

    13. Of all the deficiencies in my preperation for adulthood, the most deeply scarring is my emotional inarticulacy. Is there a way to champion a solid shared understanding of civics without denigrating emotion?

      Yes, as Robert Blake would likely comment, it's called "experience".

    14. Is there a way to champion a solid shared understanding of civics without denigrating emotion?

      Jez, I don't think emotion needs to be denigrated in any way, when formulating Constitutional legislation, it just can't be the deciding factor in whether or not that legislation is just, enforceable and measurable.

      Where we should start though, is where we've been before, to some degree at least; basic and continuing education of Civics at all levels of primary and secondary education; a return of real journalism [not the tabloid political infotainment we have today], and demanding that our elected representatives consider the proscribed limits of government scope and power.

    15. ++. Hurt feelings are too subjective. There are many things permitted by the law that offend me on one level or another, blasphemy for example. However, we are not a theocracy, and I do not want my government limiting people's speech because it might offend me or other believers

    16. Jez,
      You are strongly right-brained! Problematic with evaluating evidence and facts.

    17. I think that sf has captured William Blake's chartered objections to Constitutional Interpretation that were very much "NOT de rigueur" at the time (1776). Someone please give him a scarlet liberty cap!

    18. London BY WILLIAM BLAKE

      I wander thro' each charter'd street,
      Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
      And mark in every face I meet
      Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

      In every cry of every Man,
      In every Infants cry of fear,
      In every voice: in every ban,
      The mind-forg'd manacles I hear

      How the Chimney-sweepers cry
      Every blackning Church appalls,
      And the hapless Soldiers sigh
      Runs in blood down Palace walls

      But most thro' midnight streets I hear
      How the youthful Harlots curse
      Blasts the new-born Infants tear
      And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse

    19. Last week's conversation:

      Me - "Your Majesty Lord SCotUS, may I have permission to put my unborn child to death"?

      Lord SCotUS - "You MAY!"

      Me - "Thankyou, Lord SCotUS. My conscience is clean and I am now FREE from any moral responsibility for the crime!"

      Lord SCotUS - "Te absolvo!"

      Tomorrow's conversation:

      Me - Lord SCotUS, May I put my unborn child to death?

      Lord SCotUS - "Are you crazy man? Lock him up, for a GRAVE crime is about to occur."

      Me - "I feel so wicked... I can't do it!"

    20. Oh, how adding and/or subtracting pathos from logos can be so rewarding....

    21. ...and I always thought that the Left liked to think of themselves as the "creatives"...

    22. btw -Super Ego (described below)... yep. Right-Brain.

    23. (((Thought Criminal)))June 27, 2022 at 8:48:00 PM CDT

      Imagine the hubris required to try to save the world's climate from volcanoes and earthquakes.

    24. @ jez,
      Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy and should be saved for your friends and family. It has no place in rational debate and certainly not in policy.
      Emotion is subjective, the fact that your emotions might be stirred by any given subject is not a reflection of reality. i.e. You might "feel" like hitting someone in the face, in reality, you have committed an assault and have subjected yourself to lawful action. All appeals to charity are appeals to emotion, in reality, that charity might be skimming 90% off the top to pay for a bureaucracy that lines its own pocket.
      And so on, and so on.

    25. @FJ: I must be bad at being a leftist, then.
      @warren: But humans are emotional. Logic has its place but Spock would make a poor judge or senator. I just don't think you can do politics without biting the bullet and negotiating subjectivity. It's different from engineering.

  3. This is one messed up nation. Look at all the variety of comments here some are spot on some way off the mark. How the heck did we get to this place because now people are killing one another.

    Rudy Guilani was hit in the back while campaigning for his son who is running for governor in NY. What is wrong with people. You don't like them, don't agree with them so you accost them? The 39 year old man that hit Guiliani is sitting in jail. Guiliani refused medical care - glad he was ok. But this is our nation now. Vandalize, shoot to kill. A Fox News political commentator from Chicago his teen aged brother was murdered Friday and this weekend in Chicago a 5 month old baby.

    And what are we talking about here? I think we have bigger issues than this! Sorry no offense but our morality and priorities are messed up. We all need a time out to reacess.

    1. Amen. And I include in this the violent stupidity of January 6th. That was a horrible day for our nation, and the violence was uncalled for. I can say that while also laughing at the notion that it was an insurrection or a coup.

    2. Godspeed recovery to Rudy after that brutal assault.

    3. As for our Nation after Jan. 6.... we came so close to losing it!

    4. I'll never again be able to visit the Capitol without a shudder... and Post-Traumatic thoughts of crazed shirtless Vikings!

    5. Slavoj Zizek, "The SuperEgo and the Act

      So what is superego? The external opposition between pleasure and duty is precisely overcome in the superego. It can be overcome in two opposite ways. On one hand, we have the paradox of the extremely oppressive, so–called totalitarian post–traditional power which goes further than the traditional authoritarian power. It does not only tell you "Do your duty, I don’t care if you like it or not." It tells you not only "You must obey my orders and do your duty" but "You must do it with pleasure. You must enjoy it." It is not enough for the subjects to obey their leader, they must actively love him. This passage from traditional authoritarian power to modern totalitarianism can be precisely rendered through superego in an old joke of mine. Let’s say that you are a small child and one Sunday afternoon you have to do the boring duty of visiting your old senile grandmother. If you have a good old–fashioned authoritarian father, what will he tell you? "I don’t care how you feel, just go there and behave properly. Do your duty." A modern permissive totalitarian father will tell you something else: "You know how much your grandmother would love to see you. But do go and visit her only if you really want to." Now every idiot knows the catch. Beneath the appearance of this free choice there is an even more oppressive order. You seem to have a choice, but there is no choice, because the order is not only you must visit your grandmother, you must even enjoy it. If you don’t believe me, just try to say "I have a choice, I will not do it." I promise your father will say "What did your grandmother ever do to you? Don’t you know how she loves you? How could you do this to her?" That’s superego.

    6. (((Thought Criminal)))June 27, 2022 at 9:03:00 PM CDT

      There are so many angels on the head of a pin that we have time to talk about their wingspans and not what's really up with those surly people massing outside our gates.

    7. SF: "laughing at the notion that it was an insurrection or a coup."

      Trump's efforts might have been pathetic, but how is what he was doing different from trying to steal the 2020 election, ie a coup?

    8. We have two parts:

      1. He had a team of crack brained lawyers posit a ridiculous legal theory that, had it gained traction, would have fundamentally broken our system of elections, with it becoming common practice to complain to congress about an election, and if you party was in control, to overturn it in the losers favor if the loser's party controlled congress.

      2. Trump fulminated for over a month to his crowds that the election was stolen. Some people--around 2000--took that very seriously and entered the Capitol. Of that group, around 800 have been arrested for charges ranging from attacking police, vandalism, and trespassing. People doing violence was probably less than 400, still a large number.

      This was not an attempted coup or insurrection by any measure of those words.

    9. Granted it was pathetic, but if, say, the violence on 6th Jan had been a touch more serious, just bad enough to give sufficient excuse for Trump to reach for emergency powers and thereby hang on to power, do you think he wouldn't have? He'd have had a sudden attack of morals and choosen not to do that?

    10. “I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,”.

      “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in.”

      “I’m the f-ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now,”

      -----Donald J. Trump while attempting to commandeer the presidential limousine.

  4. As you has been noted in the past, even RBG cited Roe as flawed law. Both Alito and Thomas (in his 2nd amendment opinion) cite an extremely important fact, precedent be damned. That is the fact that the Court has absolutely no right in creating law or rights. The Constitution is quite clear as to this.

    As this has been discussed many times, I would highly recommend to everyone Judge Bork's great book "Slouching to Gomorrah" in which he details in plain language various decisions, morally right or not (the Yonkers busing decision as an example) the simple fact that the Court cannot make law, it is the job of Congress. Very simple premise, but one every person should understand when it comes to the courts.

    Should precedent be ignored? Yes, if it was decided incorrectly. The law of the land dictates that and hell, it's time the phony baloney asswipes in Congress actually stand up and do their jobs. If the minions don't like their decisions, we can vote them out but hold their feet to the fire and hold them accountable

    1. Pascal, "Pensees" (294)

      ...Doubtless there are natural laws; but good reason once corrupted has corrupted all. Nihil amplius nostrum est;[110] quod nostrum dicimus, artis est. Ex senatus—consultis et plebiscitis crimina exercentur.[111] Ut olim vitiis, sic nunc legibus laboramus.[112]

      The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign;[113] another, present custom,[114] and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. Custom creates the whole of equity, for the simple reason that it is accepted. It is the mystical foundation of its authority;[115] whoever carries it back to first principles destroys it. Nothing is so faulty as those laws which correct faults. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake[Pg 85] men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. That is why the wisest of legislators[116] said that it was necessary to deceive men for their own good; and another, a good politician, Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur.[117] We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end.

    2. Joe, talk about precedent; How far do you think the AOCs and Warrens of our country go in their calls for impeachment due to how Kavanaugh and Barrett agreed abortion was settled law? ...that they were lying to the panel at their hearings? Have we really got adults who don't understand that settled law doesn't mean it was correct law? Think that could fly?! I guess the Dems just can't TAKE that they aren't the ruling class in the SCOTUS and they're going to do anything they can....

    3. Sandy Cortez is a dunce. Elizabeth Warren is a hysterical shrieking harridan. Those fools don't realize that if they totally trash an institution and discredit it, that institution won't instantly get its credibility back if they somehow manage to seeze that institution and take it back for their team

    4. Hi, SF (kinda miss you....I know I did something that bothered or hurt you and I'll always be sorry about it, whatever it might have been, by the way).....ANYWAY: Your comment is excellent....they are hurting institutions....the ugliest part is THEY DON'T CARE.

    5. Z, You have not offended or hurt me in any way! What made you think that???

      I pulled back from blogging (one of the many times) and got completely locked out of my wordpress account, could not recover it (including my experimental wordpress blogs), so I just said to heck with it. It had nothing to do with you!


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective