Sunday, April 21, 2019

2019 NFL Mock Draft

1. Arizona Cardinals - Kyler Murray, QB, Oklahoma

2. San Francisco 49ers - Quinnen Williams, DT, Alabama

3. New York Jets - Nick Bosa, EDGE, Ohio St.

4. Oakland Raiders - Josh Allen, EDGE, Kentucky

5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Montez Sweat, EDGE, Miss. St.

6. New York Giants - Dwayne Haskins, QB, Ohio St.

7. Jacksonville Jaguars - Jawaan Taylor, OT, Florida

8. Detroit Lions - Devin White, LB, LSU

9. Buffalo Bills - Rashan Gary, DL, Michigan

10. Denver Broncos - Drew Lock, QB, Missouri

11. Cincinnati Bengals - Devin Bush, LB, Michigan

12. Green Bay Packers - T.J. Hockenson, TE, Iowa

13. Miami Dolphins - Daniel Jones, QB, Duke

14. Atlanta Falcons - Ed Oliver, DT, Houston

15. Washington Redskins - Brian Burns, EDGE, Florida St.

16. Carolina Panthers - Clelin Ferrell, EDGE, Clemson

17. New York Giants (via Cleveland) - D.K. Metcalf, WR, Ole Miss

18. Minnesota Vikings - Jonah Williams, OL, Alabama

19. Tennessee Titans - Christian Wilkins, DT, Clemson

20. Pittsburgh Steelers - Byron Murphy, CB, Washington

21. Seattle Seahawks - Nasir Adderley, S, Delaware

22. Baltimore Ravens - A.J. Brown, WR, Ole Miss

23. Houston Texans - Andre Dillard, OT, Washington St.

24. Oakland Raiders (via Chicago) - Josh Jacobs, RB, Alabama

25. Philadelphia Eagles - Cody Ford, OL, Oklahoma

26. Indianapolis Colts - Marquise Brown, WR, Oklahoma

27. Oakland Raiders (via Dallas) - Greedy Williams, CB, LSU

28. Los Angeles Chargers - Dexter Lawrence, DT, Clemson

29. Kansas City Chiefs - Deandre Baker, CB, Georgia

30. Green Bay Packers (via New Orleans) - Parris Campbell, WR, Ohio St.

31. Los Angeles Rams - Jeffery Simmons, DL, Miss. St.

32. New England Patriots - Irv Smith Jr., TE, Alabama

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Human Nature is to Waste Energy by Living in the Past

If we could harness all the energy people use living in the past, we would solve our national energy problems. It is a shame, but we love to live in the past, and this is all wasted energy. We are all guilty of it to some degree. However, it has become the signature personality trait of many people who lack strategic vision and forward thinking processes. I witness this type of behavior in everyday life. Unfortunately, most good thoughts of the past are usually overwhelmed by bad thoughts so we dwell on failures or thoughts of revenge and getting even.

This negative thought process is what leads to rumors. Ninety-nine percent of all rumors are false stories put in motion by angry people with a vendetta who want to get even with an adversary. In other words, people have an “ax to grind” and this is just wasted energy on something we cannot change the outcome – it is in the past. This does, however, demonstrate that our problem solving skills are non-existent. In fact, it is much more likely that people would blame and point the finger at others then to offer solutions and move forward. This is common in the workplace, and in everyday life.

This behavior is what leads to bullying and today it is much easier to bully using technology and social media. People can use these communication mediums to post anonymous messages. What’s worse, the bullying messages are not even unique – they have been passed down from one bully to the next.

These types of personalities will typically draw conclusions by hearing only one side of the story. And what’s more disturbing, we are more concerned about our neighbors or coworkers lives then we are with our own or our families. It is a sad existence and I feel sorry for these folks. They have nothing better to do with their own lives then to try to ruin someone else’s. And to help their effort bullies are good at brainwashing others. Their posse of brownnosing minions carryout the bullying attacks.

Of course, these same bullies can become hypocrites when they need something. They can turn on the charm to manipulate the people they have been bullying. After all, people usually only contact another human being when they need something. It is no longer human nature to contact families, relatives, friends, or coworkers to see how they are doing.

What is the result of this type of behavior? Unfortunately, the solution is for people to stick to themselves and avoid others. This means not doing anything more than necessary – like volunteering. And it is volunteering that makes this country great. Volunteers put themselves at risk for unwarranted attacks by selfish self-centered narcissists whose only purpose on this earth is to be carbon emitting oxygen thieves. Yes, climate change just may be manmade in the form of useless drivel and wasted energy from people around the globe.

Imagine how much better this world would be if people minded their own business and used their energy and intellect to solve problems without blaming others. Instead, we are a populous of dopes that cannot even come up with their own bullying quotes. Our offspring are learning trivial behavior from their parents that will spiral out of control over the years. It is a sad state of affairs, and we are all guilty of this to some degree.

It is our responsibility to work hard throughout life to better ourselves. I do not see this. It seems most adults are still stuck in our childhood brains – kids will throw their best friend under a bus to avoid punishment. We are still more concerned about suing our friends and neighbors over trivial grievances than simply saying “hi” or waving hello to them when we see them.

We are training our brains to be wired wrong – by being narcissistic self-centered rumor oriented problem creating followers who want to bring people down instead of leaders who want inspire and lift people up. Sure, many people with flawed characters are in leadership positions and they think they are good leaders. But this is far from the truth because they got into their roles by being deceitful lying backstabbing folks unwilling to be accountable or take responsibility for their actions. Instead they are willing to do what is best for themselves and not what is best for the company or others. Brain storming sessions quickly become blame storming sessions and these manipulative leaders will resort to any strategy to protect their shady images including bullying and other passive aggressive behavior.

So it is imperative that humans work hard to be better people by living in the moment to solve future problems. If our personas do not change for the better, our negativity will be the demise of the human race.

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part V)

Freedom of Contract

As far back as 1795 in American history, federal courts established contract rights as natural rights necessary to protect property and other individual rights. In Vanhorn’s Lessee v. Dorrance, judge William Patterson (a founding father) declared a Pennsylvania statute to be null and void for violating the contract clause of the Constitution. Patterson did admit that citizens must sacrifice property rights for public welfare (with just compensation), but only under “grave emergencies”.

The right or freedom of contract established by the Court in Lochner v. New York (1905) was powerful (actually freedom of contract was elevated eight years earlier in Allgeyer v. Louisiana, but this case does not receive anywhere near the same attention of Lochner). In Allgeyer, the Court’s justice Rufus Peckham held in a unanimous decision: “The 'liberty' mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.”

What made Lochner (and Allgeyer) unusual was the fact the Supreme Court elevated the freedom of contract as a right even though it did not exist in the Constitution. While Lochner v. New York only protected economic contracts, it is apparent that freedom of contract could be used to protect rights that exist in the Bill of Rights such as property rights (buying and selling property is protected by contracts) and religious rights (contract with pastor, priest, deacon, and even the bible or God). That is why conversations between a spouse, doctor, or religious leader are considered privileged, because they are protected by a contract. Freedom of contract could also protect other rights not included in the Constitution such as worker rights (implied contract between employer and employee) and civil rights (implied contract of decency, tolerance, and respect to avoid violating the rights of others – the golden rule). Therefore, the right or freedom of contract is a powerful tool to protect both individual rights within or outside the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court (also referred to as “the Court” throughout this book) rescinded this right under FDR’s progressive New Deal Court in cases like Nebbia v. New York (1934), Parrish v. West Coast Hotel (1937), and Wickard v. Filburn (1941). While the right to contract was killed by the Court, the Court continued to elevate other rights not found in the Constitution including privacy, marriage, sex, abortion, and self-defense to name a few.

There is a zero-percent chance the Court will restore the right of contract. Why? Both the Right and Left abhor the Lochner v. New York decision. It is estimated that fewer than 5% of legal scholars believe that Lochner was a good a decision and the remaining 95% are ecstatic it was overturned. Consider the fact that 90% of legal scholars believe that the Slaughter House cases (1873) were decided improperly. Yet, the Court has refused to overturn that case after 140 years. If the Court is that reluctant to overturn a case that most agree was wrongfully decided, then there is no chance the Court will reinstate Lochner and the freedom of contract. There is, however, a strange relationship between Lochner and the Slaughter House cases. The dissent argument in the Slaughter House cases was not much different than the majority opinion in Lochner. Thus, it begs to reason why one opinion is revered while the other is demonized? Nevertheless, this conflict may be precisely the reason the Slaughter House cases have never been overruled.

So why write a book about the freedom of contract if it has no chance of being restored? To illustrate how the Court has veered from the true textual meaning of the Constitution diminishing its power to protect the rights of all Americans. Had the Court remained committed to the textual meaning of the Constitution and the right of contract, it would have proved to be a useful tool to solve both conservative and liberal problems without the Court doing whatever it takes to obtain a desired result including using discrimination, controversy, and legislative activism.

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part IV)

United States citizens tried to inject social compact theories into welfare debates. The land reformers of the Nineteenth Century tried to argue that land belonged to everyone equally. Their theory suggests there should be no private property, that land should not be bought, sold, gifted, or willed. Moreover, they argued that the living, not the dead should control the land. Land reformers would argue that the sea, light, and air are all publicly owned. All that being said, none of the great theorists of social compact theory agree that all land should be publicly owned and redistributed to only living citizens. In their defense, Land reformers like to point to Locke’s statement: “Labor makes for the greatest part of the value of things.” However, this is not condoning welfare or land redistribution. It is condoning capitalism and those that work will have the best opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor and to purchase land. In fact, one of the biggest arguments made by land reformers is that it will reduce the size and power of government. Of course, we have learned that none of this true in modern America. Redistribution of wealth and welfare has grown the government in astronomical proportions over the past 60-years. Land reformers best argument from social compact theory comes from the Pufendorf point of view where citizens natural law rights are not absolute and therefore property rights can be abridged for any reason the government sees fit. However, this is the antithesis of the social contract theory America was founded on. Even if rights are abridged there must be a compelling reason and the government must use the least evasive method to achieve its objective. The Homestead Act of 1862 proved that land equality did not work. People who received free land got greedy and willed it to their children. This ended the land reformers bid for perpetual land equality. This is precisely why socialism does not work: everyone is partial to their own needs and greed. Besides, land reformers arguments that “land cannot be bought or sold” conflicts with modern liberalism principles that that rights such as healthcare can be bought and sold.

Modern progressives and liberals have moved away from the Declaration of Independence refuting natural law fundamental rights and social contract theory. However, using social contract theory arguments in favor of illegal immigration, lenient immigration laws, and gay rights would make more sense than the hollow arguments put forward merely to win political points (and votes). There are several reasons for liberals abandoning social contract theory. In particular, many progressive or liberal policies do not fit into social contract theory and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, capitalism or economic freedom and private property rights are all supported by social contract theory. Also, it is important to understand that original progressives were racists. They believed in racial purity and therefore were proponents of anti-immigration, segregation, and legislation against women’s rights. But it was not just progressive and liberals dissing the Declaration of Independence. Far right conservatives did the same thing in the 1970s in response to the civil rights movement started in the 1960s. The bottom line is that the Declaration of Independence is long forgotten in modern society, taking a back seat to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States (discussed later in this text).

The turning point in the movement against social contract theory started after the Civil War. After a brutal war, the people feared Lockean and Declaration of Independence principles of revolution and secession. The move from popular sovereignty to government sovereignty took many forms: majority rule, emergencies, social justice, presumption and other methods discussed later in this text. America began to look more like Alexander Hamilton’s view of big government over Thomas Jefferson’s political principles. A change in focus from political to social issues was also fundamental in mitigating social contract theory. There was a progressive ignorance indicating “creative political intelligence” was needed to “tame” social contract theory. However, progressives fail to see how social contract theory protects social rights such as friendships and community relationships. Progressives also incorrectly hypothesize “society makes individuals, individuals do not make society.” Obviously both statements are true, not just one.

Freedom of contract to protect natural rights was also hypothesized as a method to replace social contract theory: “There was no lack of postbellum lawyers and judges who deemed freedom of contract under the law a far safer bet than a social contract above the law.” But this text believes there is no reason that freedom of contract and social contract theory cannot coexist since both protect natural rights and popular sovereignty. And freedom of contract may not support overthrowing the government but it supports the formation of political assemblies and protests (social contracts) to keep government in check.

Is social contract theory dead in modern America? Yes, and the reasons are outlined below:

• A “state of nature” died a long time ago. A state of nature implies little governance so citizens can live free with nature. But as populations and society grew with technological advances much of the United States is no longer in a state of nature but is now a land of laws, institutions, and traditions.

• Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, did his best to destroy the “higher law principles” of social contract theory. Holmes said “The jurists who believe in natural law seem to me to be in that na├»ve state of mind that accepts what has been familiar and accepted by them and their neighbors as something that must be accepted by all men everywhere.” Holmes and other progressives such as Walter Lippmann moved society away from higher law principles to one of majority rule. Lippmann said “Politics is not concerned with prescribing the ultimate quality of life.” Moreover, Lippmann suggested “that the public philosophy shall be believed to be right.” However, all that being said, following natural law principles does not violate the right of others, but majority rule in United States history has been used consistently to violate the rights of our neighbors (more on this later in the text).

• The question of who consents to the social contract is open for debate. And is consent absolutely necessary for social compact theory? There is no question that the founders and their generation consented to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They signed the documents and even held state ratifying conventions for the Constitution. But, no one has officially signed on to these documents in over 240 years. .

Do United States citizens and aliens consent to government? The answer is both yes and no. There must be both political authority and political obligation for consent. Political authority is when “the leaders get the right to govern only those who agree to give them this right in a social contract”. Political obligation is when the “people are obliged to obey the state’s orders only if they agreed to do so in a social contract”. Those who do not consent have more rights than those who do consent. So, who consents to social contracts? Those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution; immigrants (illegal or legal) who move to the United States; those of us who inherit property; people who violate the rights of others (criminals); those of us who take more out of system (welfare and public benefits) than put into it (taxes); even those individuals or companies who benefited from temporary welfare benefits or bailouts have consented unless they paid back their grants with interest; individuals who fail to pay their taxes on time or cheat on their taxes; certain individuals and companies who work for government contracts; and military personnel as well as many public jobs. From this it is easy to surmise that a majority of Americans do consent to government and the social contract theory. Non-consenting individuals’ natural law fundamental rights should be honored as outlined in those critical documents at the founding: The Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution. Consenting individuals’ rights might be abridged. For instance, military personnel lose rights when they tried in military tribunals; Criminals are confined and even when they are free they face parole guidelines such as being forced to wear a tracking device; Welfare recipients, if the government wanted, can be drug or alcohol tested and compelled to work jobs they do not want for their benefits; Public officials can be held to higher criminal standards such as treason; Layers, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution, can be disbarred for life from practicing law if they violate their duties whereas, most individuals who are fired from a job for violating ethical standards can simply get a similar job at another company. One thing is certain, consenting or not, all citizens should be held to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Put another way, citizens and aliens consent only to Constitutional laws but no one consents to unconstitutional laws.

It is the view of this text that most Americans do provide consent and those who have not consented can be held to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution so long as their rights are not abridged for any reason. So, consent has sort of survived the test of time.

• Human or natural rights are the only aspect of social contract theory that has sort of survived the test of time. However, the “rights revolution” starting in the 1970s has increased the number of rights, but in doing so, it has also diluted our rights. Animals, nature, and abortion rights do more to mitigate our natural fundamental rights because it suggests elective surgery, a tree, and even drinking coffee are on par with true natural law fundamental rights such as obtaining knowledge and the sanctity of life. Instead, animals and nature can be protected through “human” contract rights with nature. In fact, social contract theory and a state of nature can be formulated to protect our environment. Social contract theory and higher law principles can also be used to protect nature as God intended. To make matters worse, many rights given to women, gays, and minorities in the form of diversity and affirmative action provide some groups of people preferential treatment. One should remember President Andrew Jackson’s campaign slogan: “Equal rights to all; special privileges to no one”. President’s Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover would do a huge disservice to rights by suggesting “human rights over property rights”. After all, what good are an individual’s rights if the home they live in is confiscated by the government without just compensation. Finally, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) campaigned on social contract theory in 1932. However, in reality, his social contract theory was, in essence, social justice or welfare doing another huge disservice to the doctrine. But, in FDR’s defense, he was not the genius the Left made him out to be because he merely copied what France had already accomplished with regards to social rights.

Can social contract theory be resurrected? Probably not, although many have tried. Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was at best a pseudo reenactment of the social contract theory. This text focuses on what reforms are needed to protect our true natural law fundamental rights to stop the dilution of rights (freedom of contract). This text is not trying to accomplish this goal by reinstating social contract theory but it will try to achieve this task through other Constitutional methods. Besides, it is not acceptable to pick and choose which parts of social contract theory are acceptable and which ones are not. Case in point, by doing so, the South found ways to justify slavery. However, the South could not justify slavery if they followed the entirety of Lockean and Jeffersonian social contract theory. For this reason, this text would like to see the full reinstatement of the Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence preamble for United States social contract theory. But that may not be possible based on the damage it has already undertaken.

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part III)

Americans should never forget the preamble of the Declaration of Independence has been critical for providing civil rights to minority classes of citizens in United States history where the Constitution failed: ending slavery, woman’s suffrage, and other civil rights fights. For instance, the Missouri Compromise used the Declaration of Independence social contract theory to prevent slavery in certain territories; the women’s movement started in 1848 with the Declaration of Independence; the labor movement in the 1800s found both political and social freedoms in the Declaration of Independence; Abraham Lincoln moved the nation towards war using the principles found in the Declaration of Independence; communist organizer, Eugene Debs, discovered how the Declaration of Independence could support his labor movement; three time Democratic Presidential Candidate, William Jennings Bryant, used the Declaration of Independence to point out American hypocrisies dealing with persons of newly acquired territories in the Spanish-American War (Imperialism: social contract does not support conquering and governing those who do not consent); and Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech is based on those social contract theories found in the Declaration of Independence.

All that being said, early in American history and up to the present time, the Declaration of Independence has been attacked by many saying it has no relevance to the Constitution and it does not apply to everyone equally. This surely explains the Southern philosophy to defend slavery and even the Northern philosophy to deny free-Negroes and women equal rights. In their famous debates Senator Stephen Douglas would say Abraham Lincoln was no different than King George III. Douglas would elaborate by suggesting just as King George III passed laws regulating property (taxes) without consent, Lincoln’s emancipation of slaves would be no different. However, most people, like Douglas, would confuse the social contract theory of popular sovereignty with majority rule democracy: they are not the same because majority rule democracy places sovereignty in the government even without consent of the people. Put another way, Douglas believes it is the will of majorities to decide government policy based on political sentiment at the time and not that the natural law fundamental rights of every person are the same. Of course, Southerners had no issue arguing in favor of Lockean social contract theory and the Declaration of Independence when they held they had a right to revolution and to secede from the Union.

Social contract theory has taken many forms in world history and it is important to show its progression in the United States history. In particular, to show how America has veered from the social contract theory found in the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, early American history saw both the Patriots and Loyalists favor the social contract theory put forth by Samuel Pufendorf a century earlier. Pufendorf theorized that due to the social nature of man, they create societies. This, according to Pufendorf, is the “first contract” to establish a State where people create a government and therefore, consent to be ruled. Pufendorf differs from Locke because his theory consists of a double contract. Pufendorf’s second contract is “submission”. In other words, citizens must conform, even to a rogue government, because natural rights will be sacrificed regardless as to whether or not the government is legitimate. Since citizens provide the government with consent, Pufendorf rules out that governments can be coercive. Pufendorf’s theory of social contract can be summarized in one word: Peaceful. There is no contract to overthrow a government since peace must be maintained at all costs. One could see how this fits the Loyalists view to defend England against the Colonies. It also fit the early movement of American Patriots because their motto was to protest English rule, but to do so peacefully and to follow the law. As Americans pushed for freedom via revolution, American Patriots adapted John Locke’s views. The fight over the Constitution between federalist and anti-federalist also became a battle over Locke and Pufendorf respectively. Federalist and popular sovereignty won with the Ninth Amendment while the anti-federalist won major concessions with the other Bill of Right amendments securing a second contract between citizens and government.

Social contract theory was utilized extensively by both the North and South leading up to the Civil War. Northern abolitionists adhered to John Locke’s theories of popular sovereignty, social contract, and natural rights (all men are created equal). Northerners also adhered to John Locke’s revolutionary principles threatening to secede from the South on many occasions. Legal scholars such as John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Daniel Webster would maintain that it was the “people’s constitution”. Dorr’s Rebellion (1841), in Rhode Island, was a perfect example of people using social contract theory. Citizens rebelled because they wanted to update the State constitution to be more representative of the people.

On the other hand, the situation in the South was complex when it came to social contract theory. The South would use John Locke’s revolutionary principles to argue their right to secede from the Union. When it was convenient, Southerners would use social compact theories and principles put forth by Pufendorf to defend slavery. Since, according to Pufendorf, there must be submission of the people to maintain order even in the face of a rogue government, it is easy to see how individuals or citizens could become slaves of the State. In this sense, Pufendorf would argue that rights became duties to maintain the peace, even if the duty was to support slavery. Pufendorf would rationalize slavery by suggesting that masters owned only the slaves labor, not the entire man. And when it was convenient, the South would use social contract theories put forth by Hugo Grotius to defend States rights and federalism. During the expansion West, Grotius’s social contract and federalism reinforced each other. The South maintained the Union was a mere alliance of States, thus social contract theory only applied to the States. Did “We the People” of the Constitution suggest we the people of the Union (North), or we the people of the States (South)? This text believes that social contract theory applied to both the Union and States. Finally, the South rejected all social contracts when faced with more consistent and logical arguments by Northerners. For this reason, many Southerners embraced Edmund Burke since he did not believe in natural law fundamental rights or social contract theory. Since the Civil War, only one famous American truly embraced Burke, and that was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson would use Burke’s dismissal of natural law to defend his racism similarly to how the South would justify slavery. After all, with no social contract to ensure equality, then it is acceptable to discriminate against certain groups of people. Wilson would eventually drop his support of Burke as he moved to progressivism. However, Wilson’s progressivism was perverted because he would protect natural law fundamental rights of white males while neglecting the rights of everyone else.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part II)

Free will choices are first order decisions that are made prior to any moral choice. At times free will choices will conflict and leads humans to their second order decision-making process. When this happens, the morality, decision-making process takes priority over deciding tasks based on moral rules such as the “golden rule” (treat others as you expect to be treated) or the Pauline Principle (evil cannot be done even if good may come from the action). The first principle of morality guides citizens to make decisions which strive for the fulfillment of humanity. Free will decisions are not natural (or controlled by nature), but the natural law fundamental rights and moral decisions are controlled by nature or some higher being (God).

Society creates what is known as positive law which is derived from natural law. Positive law consists of community laws and statutes which guide citizens to make correct moral decisions such as laws against crime like murder or theft. It is also the belief of this text that judges can enforce natural law when legislative laws diverge from natural law even though many scholars believe that judges have no Constitutional authority to do so. This is false. Judicial review and the original intent of the Ninth Amendment, the privileges and immunities clause, and due process clause of the Constitution are the reasons why this characterization is false (discussed in detail later).

Natural law is an excellent guide to protect individual rights. However, natural law theory gets very complex and asserts things such as sodomy, pre-marital sex, adultery, fornication, masturbation, contraception, sex toys, pornography, addictive behavior, gambling, and homosexuality are morally wrong. Natural law explains there is a difference between certain types of pleasure. For example, sitting in a rocking chair would be considered an innocent pleasure whereas viewing pornography would be an evil pleasure. But this is a fine line: for example, where do you draw the line between art and pornography? Where do you draw the line between art and obscenity? Which historical novels do we ban for political correctness in the name of protecting youths from obscene language? The problem these questions creates is obvious: It means legislative and judicial opinions and biases will develop balancing tests to define what is pornography and what is not. Where natural law theorists stray away from common sense is when they treat individual action or behavior that does not violate the rights others as violations of natural law principles. Action or behavior that does not affect others (non-consenting persons) should be acceptable since it does not violate the common good. Even if doing drugs or masturbation are considered morally unacceptable actions, but should these actions be considered a crime or as violating natural law if the behavior does not violate the rights of others? Strict natural law theorists would say yes. But this creates conservative legislators and judges whose laws end up violating individual rights. For instance, Supreme Court morality precedent insists growing medical marijuana is not allowed to relieve chronic pain (even with a doctor’s prescription) does not violate anyone’s rights. Nor does anyone see how the right to work is severed by laws that make selling sex toys or pornography illegal. When this happens, judges and legislators are taking morality too far. After all, if it were a crime to limit all types of individual behavior based on natural law morality, a large percentage of the populous would be in prison.

And let’s not forget the hypothesis of this writing: to elevate freedom of contract as one of our natural law fundamental rights. In order to accomplish this task, it is imperative to understand how Supreme Court elevates fundamental rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution. There are three methods: The Ninth Amendment, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court doctrine known as substantive due process. Each method will be evaluated in detail.

Social Contract Theory

This text will adhere to the social contract theory written in the preamble of Declaration of Independence (the text is not trying to reinstate the doctrine, but only adhere to it). United States social contract theory is a contract between the government and the people and it has three main parts. First, there is a contract to form a government to protect the higher law natural rights of consenting citizens. Secondly, if the government fails to protect the rights of its citizens then it is the duty of citizens to overthrow the government. Thirdly, it provides less governance is best to maintain a desired state of nature.

The Declaration of Independence says: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This social contract theory written by Thomas Jefferson closely follows the theories set forth by John Locke. In Locke’s view no government or law was above the sovereignty of people (popular sovereignty). Locke was a master in defining the “principles” of government. Thus, the American Revolution became a movement over principles rather than over the form of government. Many liberal reformers like to downplay the social contract aspect found within the preamble of Declaration of Independence by focusing on the other parts of document or by incorrectly comparing it to the English Declaration of Rights which provided sovereignty to government (Parliament). The Declaration provides a perpetual contract where the people can change government whenever it is not properly protecting the rights of citizens. However, Jefferson writes “government long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”. In other words, there must be a legitimate reason for changing government, it cannot be merely for political and ideological difference. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 basically endorses the Declaration of Independence’s use of Lockean social contract theory giving credence to the document.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part I)

Contracts

A contract is defined as “a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law”. Legally, a contract may also be “unspoken” or implied. Contracts are a big part of our everyday life. For instance, most business contracts are conducted with a hand shake. This is a “promissory obligation” contract that is binding and can be enforced by the law. At a minimum, breach of a promissory obligation would yield a lack of trust in that person or party by the public. This is why Congress has such low approval numbers (they do not keep promises). Individuals enter into dozens of contracts every day. Every money transaction that takes place is a contract. Thus, most people have contracts to cover phone, energy, home, water, TV, internet, food and other expenses such as insurance, car, services, and healthcare to name a few. The Constitution contains a contracts clause which protects lenders from borrowers defaulting on their loans. A person has two options when it comes to contracts. First, they can refuse to enter into a contract agreement or secondly, they can accept a contract agreement.

There are three legal reasons a court may void a contract agreement (outside coercion and exploitation): Public policy reasons, unconscionability, and bargaining power inequity. But courts have used these reasons to void perfectly good contracts, where there has been no coercion or exploitation, by the parties partaking in the contract. Take, for example, bargaining power inequity: Parties in exact equality have no reason to enter into a contract. For instance, there must be some inequity for Party A to enter into a contract with Party B. In other words, Party A wants more of what Party B has available for sale. For this reason, many bargaining power inequity rulings are bogus. Public policy reasons lead judges to input personal biases and opinions into decisions. For example, in a Massachusetts surrogacy case (R.R. v. M.H, 1998) the court sided with the surrogate mother who breached her contract by keeping the baby. The judge ruled it is not normal public policy to sell babies. This is obviously the judge’s opinion; if it is normal public policy to abort a baby, then why can’t people sell a baby, especially to prevent an abortion? Judges also use unconscionability to input biases and personal opinions. Consider the 1965 Washington DC case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. In this case, the court ruled in favor of a person who breached their contract by defaulting on their furniture payments. The court ruled that the furniture store could not repossess the furniture per the contract. Put another way, the furniture store was out the remaining amount due in the contract in addition to the furniture. In this decision, the court had empathy toward the plaintiff because she was poor. But the court’s decision would negatively affect hundreds of poor people living in the same neighborhood. In response to the decision, the furniture store reduced credit levels and raised prices to cover lawsuits since they could no longer repossess items for breach of contract. In another example, California courts have barred companies like Circuit City from using arbitration as a way to solve employee disputes. Instead, courts want companies to face lengthy and more expensive class action suits instead of settling disputes via arbitration. These actions force companies to cut employees, reduce wages, and or pass any increased legal costs onto the consumer.

But contracts are much more than the lender and borrower relationships. Implied or written contracts protect other types of relationships such as employer and employee, student and educator, and marriage between two persons. Implied contracts also protect our friendships. After all, true friends should be responsible to look out for the welfare of their comrades. Family is the core of society, but friendships (relationships: friends, workmates, and political acquaintances) are the glue that holds communities since relationship contracts work for the common good (general welfare) of the society.

It can be argued that contracts include the unspoken or implied relationships between one’s self and every other person in the world. After all, we cannot violate the rights of another person even if they are a stranger. Hence, a contract is implied that all humans will treat other humans with dignity, decency, tolerance, and respect to avoid violating the rights of others. A contract with humanity is not much different than the Golden Rule where individuals should treat others how they expect to be treated. Furthermore, John Quincy Adams felt society as whole is a contract “a partnership not only between who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are not born.” In other words, the living must respect the dead and at the same time pave the way for future generations. For example, Americans should never forget the millions that have died fighting for their freedom. For all these reasons, contracts are powerful and control just about every action an individual may partake.

Most definitions of contract say it is an agreement between two or more parties, but individuals make personal contracts in the form of schedules, goals, and missions that they want to achieve. It is a natural law principle that humans have the right to pursue and develop a life plan. These personal contracts are important for several reasons. First, they define our personality because these types of agreements are the easiest to break (like a New Year resolution). Those that achieve in life will more than likely attain most of their individual contract goals. On the other hand, those that fail in life will ultimately quit on most of their individual contract goals. For this reason, it can be argued that biggest disability facing Americans is that of quitting on our goals or personal contracts. Secondly, it is important to remember that all individuals have the “right to pursue happiness” but nobody is “guaranteed happiness”. The only way to achieve happiness is to set difficult goals and to attain them. Even this may not guarantee happiness but failing to meet goals will almost certainly lead to a miserable or handicapped existence. Consider how many Americans (environmentalists) believe that man has an implied contract with nature or the planet Earth. These individuals want humans to leave this planet a better place than when we entered into it. This would fit the social contract put forth by John Quincy Adams in the previous paragraph. This may also be an example of natural law and God’s contract with humans and vice versa. If this is true, then persons following this “implied” contract must set lofty goals in personal contracts to achieve the outlook they want for the planet. After all, anything worth achieving in life will never come easy.

Natural Law Fundamental Rights

It is also important to understand natural law fundamental rights. Natural law fundamental rights are higher level rights sometimes referred to as simply natural law. Natural law rights “must be recognized as self-evident to all.” A natural law right is one that would be right, good, and responsible (as opposed to wrong, bad, and irresponsible) for personal fulfillment and the general good of humanity (common good). Fundamental rights and natural law rights are usually identified as individual human rights, but in actuality they are collective rights because everyone has the same rights. Natural law rights are rights that all people are born with and they cannot be taken away by others or by any government. A few of these fundamental rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Fundamental natural law rights are contracts between a person and a higher being (it can be God or whomever you believe gave you the natural freedoms you enjoy). Government can protect these rights, but they cannot generate a fundamental right because fundamental rights existed before the creation of government and laws. But what happens when our fundamental rights are being violated by others or the government? It is then the job of the courts and our judicial system to protect our fundamental rights, even those that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But the Constitution does not protect individuals, whose rights are being violated, from wrongly decided Supreme Court cases. For this reason, this book will extensively evaluate the role of the Supreme Court in defining and defending enumerated and unenumerated natural law fundamental rights to protect God’s natural law contracts with each person in society.

Briefly, to better explain natural law, first there are several fundamental rights which guide our free will choices. Those natural law fundamental rights include the right to work, play, friendships, marriage, health, life, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice to name a few. Our free will decisions ideally strive for personal fulfillment for the common good. Free will decisions or choices should be made without the interference of emotions and feelings but instead be based on sound reason. According to natural right scholar John Finnis “Natural Law assumes that men had certain duties toward one another, as social beings, and had certain rights that men must respect.” Moreover, natural law principles conclude there should be “no arbitrary preferences among persons” to eliminate hypocrisy, biases, opinions, and selfishness. Furthermore, “There is no human right that will be overridden if feelings (whether generous or unselfish, or mean and self-centered) are allowed to govern choice ….”

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Why the Right of Privacy is Overused by the Court

The right to privacy was elevated by the Supreme Court during the controversial case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Griswold was controversial for several reasons. First of all, the Court could not agree on an acceptable way to elevate the right of privacy since it does not exist in the Constitution. Only Justice Goldberg, who cited the Ninth Amendment really got the decision correct. Justice Douglas, who wrote the convoluted decision cited the right of privacy was interpreted from a penumbra of privacy rights founded in the Constitution: No quartering of troops and no illegal searches and seizures to name a few. But the fact the founders cited only specific privacy rights certainly meant they did not want to protect all privacy rights as absolute. This brings us to our second point; the right of privacy is ambiguous and broad and is not meant to protect things such as crimes. For this reason, rights should be drafted narrowly to protect against ambiguity. Since the right of privacy can cover a wide rage of rights, it is often overused by the Court.

I willing to bet in a recent case, Carpenter v. United States (to be decided in 2018), that the Court will use the right to privacy to prevent the government from obtaining GPS data off cell phones without a warrant. But is this really a privacy case? No, it is a property case. The government should not be allowed to trespass on private property (a cell phone) without a warrant. Unlike privacy, property rights are protected in the Constitution. However, the Court has decimated property rights to the point that the Court protects privacy within the home, but the home itself is not protected. A home can be confiscated for anything the government feels will bring a public benefit (not use) to the community. This means no one’s home is safe. How can our privacy be protected in a home if the home is not fully protected (Kelo v. New London)? Heck, the government can confiscate private property even without just compensation (Penn Central Station v. New York).

Privacy rights have been used to protect other rights such as gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, and contraception. But even these rights can be protected by other means such as the right to contract that was introduced by the Court in Lochner v. New York (1905) and then rescinded by the Court in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). The right to contract has been outlined as a fundamental right in Justice Washington’s decision Corfield v. Coryell (1823). Washington’s Corfield decision became the basis for the Fourteenth Amendment drafted in 1868. But the progressive court overruled this right so government to intervene in everything that is economic including labor laws, manufacturing, wages, hours, farming, and even child labor. This is why it is much easier for a child to obtain an abortion then to get a job. In fact, it is harder for a child to watch a “R rated” movie, smoke, drink, vote, play a violent video game, work, or marry then to get an abortion. The right to contract was originally used to protect the employer / employee relationship. But it could also be used to protect marriage and even consensual decisions made by non-married couples. Privacy right cases always cite Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society Sisters (1925) since these cases elevate many fundamental rights such as the right of marriage and the right to raise a family. One can see how those rights may protect gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, and contraception. But these cases also protected other rights such as the right of contract among other things including the right to work a lawful profession. It is apparent that the progressive sect of the Court simply picks and chooses which of the rights outlined by Justice McReynolds in Meyer and Pierce they like and dismiss those they do not like. It does not work like that. Since Meyer and Pierce are still considered good law today, the Court has to uphold the entire decision, not just the aspects they like.

The freedom of contract could be used to uphold marriage between any two individuals and decisions about consensual sex. I cannot find anything that will uphold abortion. Abortion is a contract between mother and child and that contract is obviously violated. The Court even lets women obtain an abortion without notifying the father which is also a violation of the contract between two consenting adults. Abortion is not even a private matter since it happens outside the home and a record is kept of the surgery. If abortion is a right then any cosmetic surgery would also be a fundamental right. Sure, we have a right to choose a cosmetic surgery, but it is not fundamental because cosmetic surgeries are controversial and not a natural right that we can all agree upon with 100% confidence like the right to self-defense, to work a lawful profession, to obtain knowledge, to procreate, to care for our children, or to enter into a contract with another company or person. I am not saying certain privacy rights should not be protected, but it is my opinion that privacy is used in a manner that it has become the safety net to protect things that do not need special protections such as abortion. This is why the Court resorted to using privacy rights instead of property rights or even the right to contract. And if the right of contract is brought back, then that would decimate the legitimacy of the entire New Deal progressive revolution.

Monday, March 11, 2019

Why Truman was Like Obama (Part II)

Truman would not learn from his mistakes. Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean conflict. In Youngstown Steel and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952), the Court held that Truman’s impatient actions were unconstitutional: even during emergencies such as wartime. Truman could have solved the strike situation without nationalizing the industry. But Truman would nationalize several industries following World War II to circumvent the growing trend of union strikes. Truman would go on to call strikes un-American but Truman supported the unionization of labor as a Senator. Dealing with labor strikes displayed Truman’s not only inept problem-solving skills, but his overall contempt for the Constitution (which he also trampled on during his Senate days supporting the FDR progressive economic power grab). Of course, no president had a worse record putting their agenda in front of the Supreme Court than Obama. Obama is the only modern president to lose 50% of his agenda cases put in front of the high court. In fact, Obama not only lost over half of his cases in front of the Court, he lost most of them by a 9-0 majority.

There are also many eerie parallels between Truman’s conflict in Korea and Obama’s fight against terrorism, especially ISIS. Both Truman and Obama underestimated their opponents. Obama called ISIS the “JV team” and Truman, of course, being the bigot he is, did not see China as any kind of threat. While Truman got greedy because he lacked respect for China, Obama basically did nothing to thwart ISIS. Obama also did nothing to stop genocide and terrorism in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq while at the same time he created vacuums for terrorism to flourish in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. The Korea conflict ended in a draw, but Obama lost ground not only to terrorism but to rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. While Truman pushed McArthur to be overly aggressive in Korea; Obama achieved similar results by being much too passive with terrorism.

Both Truman and Obama were Nixonian in their paranoia. Truman, with the help of J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, wiretapped Senators, Congressmen, and even Supreme Court Justices. Truman was paranoid over Communism infiltrating his administration. Obama was just paranoid. The Obama administration was caught listening to the leaders of allies and of course used very questionable techniques to listen to Donald Trump’s incoming transition and administrative teams. While Obama used an Air Force 1 photo op over New York City to scare citizens into a frenzy fearing another 9-11, Truman was even more sinister by testing nuclear weapons in Nevada without warning citizens of its side effects. Needless to say, both Obama and Truman were blinded by their love of self and their super egos.

Both Truman and Obama administrations were also plagued by scandals. Obama scandals included Fast and Furious, IRS and media targeting, improper spying on political enemies, the Clinton email server, the Uranium One deal, and the Benghazi coverup to name a few. Interestingly, one Truman scandal was with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (present day IRS) dealing out favors to political allies was similar to the Obama IRS scandal which denied rights to political enemies. Both Truman and Obama abhorred the press. Obama held the lest amount of press conferences than any administration in U.S. history while Truman held many press conferences but was irate over his negative press coverage. And both Obama and Truman have a legacy of appointing bad Supreme Court Justices. Truman appointed four justices which are generally ranked among the 10 worst in United States history. The jury is still out on Obama appointees but Sotomayor has no business being a judge of any kind and Kagan is not much better.

Russia is an interesting topic for both Truman and Obama. Obviously, Obama was weak with Russia. Obama did nothing as Russia meddled in our elections; Obama did nothing as Russia interfered in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; and Obama gave Russia 20% of our enriched uranium. Obama always failed to act when faced with any type of Russian aggression. On the other hand, Truman talked tough against Russia but he did nothing to deter their aggression other than to build up our Nuclear arsenal and create the Central Intelligence Office (CIA). Truman was responsible for the arms race, the red scare (McCarthyism) and bitter feelings between the two countries. Remember Russia was in shambles after World War II losing over 10% of its population and it was in economic turmoil. Truman was in a unique position to try diplomacy first with Russia after World War II when relations were at a high between the two nations, but once again Truman acted with haste and destroyed that opportunity. Sure, the Truman Doctrine (hardline on communism and terrorism) is widely accepted and promoted by all administrations (except Obama) since its introduction, but only Truman had the opportunity to confront a weakened Russia. Russia would have the atomic capabilities by the time Truman left office.

While both Truman and Obama were bumbling fools, there were some stark differences between the two men. While Truman would do anything to keep America and its allies safe from the spread of communism, Obama did very little to protect Americans from the threat of our adversaries and terrorism. Iran, North Korea, and ISIS gains in power under Obama would have for sure gotten more attention under Truman. Truman also understood that presidents make mistakes and they should own up to them. He made so many that it was said to “err is Truman”. However, Obama would never admit to making a mistake and is the first president to leave office having never committed an error (at least in his own egotistical mind). When something went wrong in the Obama administration, he always claimed the John Banner defense: “I know nothing about that”.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Why Truman was Like Obama (Part I)

Truman, like Obama, had no business being president. Both accomplished next to nothing to earn that prestigious position. Truman was a failed farmer, banker, and businessman. Although Truman’s biographies incorrectly claim he would have made millions if he stuck it out, but it is hard to make millions after you go bankrupt. Truman had some success as an officer in WWI but that is about it. Truman turned to politics after failing in his other business adventures. This sounds a lot like Obama who achieved nothing before becoming a Senator, a lot less than Truman. Obama was at best a community organizer living off the taxpayers dime, but he never ran anything in his life. Truman gained political notoriety similarly to how Barack Obama gained his political success: working for organized crime lords in Kansas City (Obama worked for Chicago crime lords). Truman was a puppet for the Prendergast mob family while Obama was Tony Rezco’s puppet. Truman defended his actions by saying he could do more as an insider to a crime family to generate reform then as an outsider. But this makes Truman complicit to murder, election fraud, racketeering, and other crimes since he used these organizations to back him all the way to Washington. The same applies to Obama, he is complicit in any illegal activity conducted by Rezco. As a Senator, Truman had no new ideas and failed to introduced any significant legislation. Instead, Truman rubberstamped any FDR progressive policy from Social Security to the Tennessee Valley Authority. Truman never voted against any FDR policy including even more controversial ones such as packing the Supreme Court (Truman was one of the few Democrats who was on board with this move). Similarly, Obama achieved nothing as a 2-year Senator: he not only failed to introduce any legislation, but he voted “present” most of the time to avoid taking sides over controversial political issues to further his presidential ambitions.

Truman felt slighted by FDR because he gave him very little respect, but he did not do anything to earn any respect except to be his puppet. Truman was a Democratic National Committee compromise to be FDR’s vice president for the 1944 term. FDR would die only 82 days into that term leaving a failed person as president of the United States. As President, Truman’s “Fair Deal” was merely an unimaginative double down on FDR’s “New Deal”. Similarly, Obama would try to be a “New Deal” copycat 70 years later. Just as Truman’s Democratic Party lost control of the House and Senate 2 years into his presidency, Obama repeated this history because they were both terrible leaders. Obama, forced failed policies on Americans trying to reintroduce FDR New Deal policies such as ObamaCare and the “shovel-ready” stimulus. What Obama failed to realize is that 70 years after FDR there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs. Hence, Obama lost near super-majorities just 2 years into his presidency.

Truman failed primarily because he was impatient. Hence, he never took the time to understand issues. He made one impatient decision after another. Truman, like most super-ego presidents, thought he understood history and issues better than he really did. Truman, however, could be easily manipulated by his cabinet. Whomever got to Truman first with their side of an argument generally won the day. What’s worse, Truman was a bigoted man who even joined the KKK for a short period of time. Truman believed that Blacks belonged in Africa, Yellows belonged in Asia, and only Whites belonged in Europe and America. Truman’s view of African-Americans, Jews, and women would be biased until the day he died. Sure, the Truman administration passed some Civil Rights legislation and supported the creation of Israel for the Jews, but Truman only did these things to win votes. Truman hated blacks, Jews, and women. He saw them all as inferior to White males and this was displayed by his executive hiring record. On the other hand, Obama would be just as biased against Whites and the Police leading to the highest level of racial tensions since the LBJ administration. Obama only made issues out of white on black or blue on black crime, he never cared much about less politically charged criminal cases such as black on black or black on any other racial class of people. Obama, like Truman, also had contempt for women in the workplace or in government. Obama’s government would only pay women 72 cents for every dollar a man would receive for the same work. While Obama was not impatient, he and Truman were very good at being indecisive and waffling over issues. Truman waffled over China and by the time he left office Mao had won the civil war making it a communist state. On the other hand, Obama also waffled on foreign issues in Syria, the Arab Spring, and he even had a short window of opportunity in Iran that he passed on.

A good example of Truman’s leadership failures is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman explained his action by claiming it saved 250,000 American lives. But the most accurate estimates by Generals claim those numbers were highly inflated. Generals thought anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 American lives would have been lost invading Japan. This may seem low, but there are several reasons for these assessments. First, Japan had already been showing signs of surrender. Secondly, the Russians would be entering the War against Japan just 6 days after the second atomic bomb hit Nagasaki. Thirdly, the invasion of Japan was not set to begin for 3 months and Japan could have been made much less formidable with constant bombing of military targets. Finally, China also enter the fight against Japan. But Truman was impatient and could not wait to drop the bomb. The only logical reason for Truman to act in an impatient manner was to try to send a message to the Russians with whom Truman was negotiating peace talks after the fall of Germany. Obviously, Truman’s message to the Russians did not deter them in any way for a number of reasons. First, Russia was not a third world power as Truman theorized. Truman never thought Russia would obtain nuclear power, but his actions prompted the start of the arms race. Secondly, Truman saw Russia and the Nazis as one of the same. He told the New York Times the United States should support whomever is losing the war so Russia and Germany would continue to kill each other. Imagine the ramifications if we supported the Nazis and they were able to use that help to beat the Russians then maybe the world would be much different today (an Arian Race). In other words, Truman started fighting the Russians before WWII was over. Truman’s misguided decision was also based on the idea that the bomb would be used only against military targets. Instead, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated killing close to 350 thousand innocent civilians. Truman’s naivety, ignorance, and impatience forced him to act months before it was necessary. Similarly, Obama magnified the Bush administration’s drone weaponry program which led to much higher collateral damage. Obama feared putting troops on the ground to capture high ranking enemy terrorists just as Truman feared putting troops on the ground in Japan. Truman went to war unilaterally in Korea and Obama went to war unilaterally in Libya. It is no surprise that both an unstable North Korea and Libya are two of America’s biggest foreign threats today.

Friday, March 1, 2019

Why Abortion is No Different than Sterilization Laws

Current abortion laws are not much different from those outdated compulsory sterilization laws. The Court held in Buck v. Bell (1927) that compulsory sterilization was legal. Justice Holmes declared “Three generations of imbeciles was enough” and Carrie Buck was sterilized. States used sterilization as a means to eliminate “defective” persons. Defective persons could be anyone with epilepsy to more extreme purposes including racial purity. Germans used Justice Holmes opinion in Buck for their defense at Nuremberg to fight war crimes. Buck has not been overruled, but its decision was diminished by Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). Sterilization continued in the United States into the 21st Century. At the same time sterilization and eugenics were gaining popularity it is no surprise that abortion also gained more credibility.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, not only promoted abortion, but she also supported eugenics and sterilization. Sanger also saw abortion as a method to eliminate defective persons including minorities (especially African-Americans) and anyone who has a birth or mental defect. Today, many of Sanger’s extreme abortion philosophies have come to fruition. Half of all abortions are preformed on African-Americans who only make up 13% of the population. And abortion is being used by persons to eradicate “defects” such as downs syndrome. Recent articles have said that Iceland has almost eliminated downs syndrome persons and many countries are following their lead including the United States.

First, I would like to point out that downs syndrome persons are healthy and live highly functional and productive lives. They are happy persons who rarely become wrapped up in decisive politics. We need more persons like this, not less! The United States and our Constitution protects downs syndrome persons from discrimination. But isn’t aborting a down syndrome baby discrimination? How is this any different than China allowing millions of abortions of female babies each year? It is not any different, they are both discrimination. Chinese families are mandated to have only one child and a male is for some reason more desirable and therefore many families abort female babies. This is no different than aborting a downs syndrome baby.

Some argue abortion and sterilization are not the same since abortion is a voluntary act while sterilization was a mandatory act. I completely disagree. First, in many cases abortion decisions are influenced by liberal outlets and are not voluntary decisions. Secondly, a voluntary act of discrimination may be even worse than someone mandating discrimination because in many cases healthy babies are aborted for no reason other than birth control. Finally, both abortion and sterilization follow the philosophy of eugenics introduced over a century ago to eradicate “defective” persons and promote racial purity.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

Restoring the American Dream (Part V)

The Court has ruled that local, state, and federal monopolies are off limits from Sherman Anti-Trust suits (Parker v. Brown, 1943). Even when the government uses licenses and zoning laws to deny persons a lawful occupation, the Court has protected the government. Why would anyone need a funeral director license to learn how to embalm a corpse to sell coffins online? Someone should be able to sell a box without government interference. Why would anyone need a license and hundreds of hours of training to drive a cab or to be a florist? There is no rationale for this because these laws do not protect the health or safety of Americans. Governments continually protect local and national monopolies. Yet, the Court has broken up private companies such as ALCOA (1945) using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. ALCOA’s crime was it sold aluminum products at a low cost for its customers. ALCOA did not do anything unlawful to eliminate competition such as price gauging and this was even admitted in the Court’s majority opinion by Justice Learned Hand. The Court held that the objective of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was to not only punish unlawful behavior but lawful behavior. Alan Greenspan would call the ALCOA decision a travesty because they were punished for being too efficient. The end result allowed other aluminum producers into national markets who sold products at higher costs to customers. What a surprise, the Court screws American citizens again. Hence, when it comes to monopolies the Court rewards bad behavior, and punishes good behavior. The Court and our local, state, and federal governments are continually on the wrong side of justice especially when it comes to protecting individuals pursuing the American dream and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to restoring the American dream, and upholding the pursuit of happiness the Court should follow a few basic rules. First, restore the freedom or right to contract. Yes, this will override the New Deal progressive agenda that allowed the government to regulate anything economic, but that is the point. Families should be allowed to grow as much wheat on their property as they want; children should be allowed to work before the age of 16 to save money or help support their family; companies should be allowed deemphasize the power of unions; and workers and employers should be able to work as many hours as is advantageous to both parties. Second, laws and regulations as well as legal contracts must benefit person A the same as person B. This will clear up reverse discrimination, misguided morals, and misguided Contract Clause interpretations by the Court. Third, the Court should reverse Whitman and hold Congress accountable for creating and monitoring all laws. Fourth, the Court should only allow federal government departments and agencies that support some enumerated Constitutional function. Fifth, the Court should restore the Contracts Clause which would stop this never-ending saga of our Court system of allowing persons who use products incorrectly from wining lawsuits. Sixth, make the loser of a case liable for the court costs to cut down on frivolous lawsuits. Seventh, the Court has to stop defending unlawful government monopolies and prosecuting lawful private monopolies. Finally, it is acceptable to elevate fundamental rights not mentioned in the constitution such as the freedom of contract which has already been accomplished in Meyer.

When providing fundamental rights constitutional protection using the due process clause, the privileges and immunities clause, or the Ninth Amendment the Court should follow a few rules. First, the fundamental right should be “deep rooted in American history and tradition” (Glucksberg v. Washington, 1997). Second, it is imperative to write the fundamental right in narrow terms to avoid ambiguity and arbitrariness. For instance, the right to privacy is broad and ambiguous. Remember, the right to privacy is not absolute because the Court would not allow criminal private behavior such as rape or incest. Most crimes happen in private. Hence, Griswold v. Connecticut could provide married or consenting partners privacy rights regarding lawful sexual activity and family decisions. This is a narrowly tailored right but still broad enough it would have covered later decisions made by the Court: Baird v. Eisenstadt (1972), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Troxel v. Granville (2010). Third, it is important to define and elevate fundamental rights that 1. Do not conflict with other fundamental rights, 2. The Right is not controversial – in other words, it is something that we can all agree with 100% of the time, 3. The Right is not purely political, 4. The Right is a natural right we are born with, and 5. The Right is not a government created right or entitlement. For example, abortion violates all of these conditions because it does conflict with other rights such as the right to procreate, and it is political, controversial, and a government created right. And we can also say abortion is not deep rooted in American history and tradition because it was never an acceptable practice. Troxel v. Granville is not a controversial case because the fundamental right for parents to make decisions regarding their children is widely accepted. While Lawrence may be less controversial if the fundamental right elevated was not sodomy sex, but instead includes all sexual behavior between consenting adults. Homosexual sex may not be deep-rooted in American history and tradition, but sex is. And of course, some rights may conflict such as religious freedom and the rights of homosexuals, but these conflicts are marginal and far and few in between. Unfortunately, we make a big deal out of these issues. In Masterpiece Bakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), a baker was compelled to make gay marriage cakes even when it violated his right of conscience. This case is a conflict of rights, but every store owner should be allowed to deny business (or contract) if it violates their First Amendment rights of conscience. Sure, this may lead to more discrimination, but businesses who truly discriminate will face public scrutiny and lose market share. The First Amendment protects hate speech so long as it does not incite violence. Hence, it is okay to hate other people for discriminatory reasons. But once word gets out that a business will not serve Jews or African-American simply because of their faith or race then that business will more than likely be forced to close its doors when they lose market share. Government interference over customer discrimination is no longer necessary because modern societal morals will punish business owners. For example, just this past week, a Colorado Coffee business posted a discriminatory remark on a store sign. The coffee shop has since faced constant protests and they have been forced to close down without any government interference. Today, more than ever, Society can punish without government interference mainly because of social media and fast-moving information. Besides, shouldn’t a business owner be allowed to deny service (a contract) to a discriminatory person such as a White Supremacist or a Homophobe or a Islamaphobe. Why should an African-American baker or Jewish baker be compelled to bake a Confederate Flag or Swastika cake?

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Restoring the American Dream (Part IV)

There are many other ways the government interferes with the pursuit of happiness. The Court has rewritten the Contracts Clause to treat persons working in the financial sector as second-class citizens (Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell). Allowing one side of a contract to default deprives liberty to the other side. Later Contract Clause cases have voided contracts even when customers use product incorrectly allowing them to win frivolous lawsuits. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that laws which permit reverse discrimination are acceptable denying many their rightful pursuit of the American dream and happiness. In Raich v. Gonzales, the Court used misguided moral standards to deny persons seeking pain relief using medical marijuana with a doctor’s prescription. Another moral standard which violates individual rights are laws which make selling “sex toys” illegal. These types of laws violate the right of both the business owner to pursue a lawful occupation and the customer who will use these products in the privacy of their home. Just because it is something we would not do, it does not make it wrong: If it makes others happy then it should be legal. Every person should have an equal opportunity for a good education, but the government prevents this from happening. The biggest issue in education is not money, but instead unions which protect bad teachers and prevent impoverished kids from having access to a private education or the public school of their choice.

The government has gone rogue for a number of reasons explained above, but there is another chilling reason why this true. In Whitman v. American Truckers Association, the Court permits the practice of letting federal agencies write and enforce laws without Congressional oversight. This is a direct violation of the Constitution which says all laws must originate from Congress. With over 300 agencies invoking their pet projects on American citizens, it is no wonder regulation is out of control. One may ask how can this happen? Well, the answer is simple. First, the government is trying to do too much so it delegates most of its work to agencies. Secondly, Congress cannot be expected to be experts on all things. Thus, the Court finds it acceptable that Congress can be complacent and delegate their jobs to other agencies. Congress loves this outcome because they can play ignorant with their angry constituents by using John Banner’s (and Obama’s) favorite line of defense: “I know nothing” about that. Unfortunately, they are probably being truthful about their ignorance.

Most federal agencies may be pushing what is a noble agenda, but the outcome is usually what I refer to as “tunnel vision regulation”. The outcome of “tunnel vision regulation” may help achiever or further the agencies cause while at the same time creating dozens of other obstacles for a business or individual to navigate. What’s worse, most government agencies perform functions which are outside the realm of enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Correcting this monstrous error is not only going to be difficult, it seems to get progressively worse each year with new agencies being added to the government mission creep statement. Of course, we all know what happens when a mission of any entity becomes too large and convoluted – it becomes inefficient and wasteful. Most companies only make one or a few different kinds of products for good reason: to have focus and to become proficient in making that product. The government is trying to do too much and mission creep is a massive problem.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a prime example of a rogue agency with a highly charged political agenda which makes the American dream and the pursuit of happiness harder simply because they drive up energy costs. It is one thing to have clean air and water, but it another thing to create market chaos with the whole “green” hysteria agenda. The Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted charity groups solely because of their political affiliation violating their right of conscience. Targeting people because their beliefs do not fit our own is wrong and is the antithesis of the guiding principles our country was founded upon in the Declaration of Independence such as the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line is that agencies with no oversight will go rogue. Until the federal government mission and agency power are reigned in, the American dream will continue to slip further away for many. How can this be corrected? First and foremost, the federal government needs to concentrate on enumerated Constitutional powers. For instance, the EPA can be abolished and the job of monitoring pollution issues can reside with the States and the Commerce Department (for pollution that travels and affects interstate commerce and public health and safety). That seems to be a fair compromise because we can still have clean air and water without driving energy costs sky high. Tax reform can downsize and diminish the role of the IRS. Law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, CIA, DEA, ICE, NCIS, ATF, and so on can be consolidated in some manner that may make the dissemination of information more reliable. The FBI can be abolished because it has proven over the past decade that it is rogue organization because it basis it outcomes on political ideology, not the law. Other departments such as education, agriculture, health and human services, and housing and urban development can be abolished in favor of State jurisdiction.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Restoring the American Dream (Part III)

Takings are the most intrusive form of government interference and regulation over the American dream. The Constitution says government can use eminent domain only if the takings are for public use and with just compensation. But what gives government the right to take property from the poor and give it to wealthy land developers (Berman v. Parker, 1954)? In fact, the government can take property from anyone if the outcome is one of public benefit and not one of public use. Hence, the Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005) allows the government to take property from a person if the outcome is more jobs and or higher tax revenue for the community. Hence, nobody’s property is safe from eminent domain. Isn’t it odd that the Court protects privacy within the home, but it has done nothing to secure the property rights of the home.

If this is not bad enough, the Court can take property from people using regulatory measures without just compensation. This was decided in Penn Central v. New York (1978) and Sierra-Tahoe v. Tahoe Reginal Planning Association (2002) line of cases. In Penn Central the Court held that a New York law placing a historic landmark designation on Penn Central was legal. The Court held New York can not only prevent any building modifications to Penn Central but it required no just compensation. In Sierra-Tahoe the Court held regulations which denied building permits for 20 years was legal without just compensation. In other words, temporary takings without just compensation are legal. But it is not just homes and buildings that are at stake when it comes to government takings. The Court also allows the government to confiscate any type property involved in a crime without just compensation such as a car, boat, or plane. This law may be acceptable if the owners of the property perpetrated the crime. For instance, a boat used to transport large amounts of heroin may be impounded without just compensation. But confiscation of property is allowed even if the owner of the property is merely an innocent victim of the crime (Bennis v. Michigan). Tina Bennis lost her car without any compensation because it was used by her husband and a prostitute for illegal sexual activity. We know Tina Bennis was not complicit in allowing her husband to have sex with prostitutes. Yet, these types of civil forfeiture cases are ever-increasing. Civil forfeiture is sometimes referred to as “guilty property” cases.

The most egregious violation of the takings clause is when the government uses taxes to support welfare programs. In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company (1895) the Court held that a federal income tax was unconstitutional. However, this decision was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment. But nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment says that federal tax revenue can be used for anything other than enumerated constitutional powers. This did not stop the Court from upholding the first welfare program (Social Security) in Helvering v. Davis (1937). In this case, the Court held that social security was legal based on the General Welfare Clause. Social Security is a government Ponzi Scheme where money is confiscated from struggling young people and then given to wealthier older persons.

Helvering opened the door for the legality of any welfare program using the General Welfare Clause. But, once again, the General Welfare Clause is not an unlimited grant of power for the federal government. If the government could use the General Welfare Clause to pass anything outside of its Constitutional enumerated powers, then why did the framers bother enumerating any powers in the Constitution? After all, any enumerated power would simply be a truism with no official purpose. So, the question that begs to be answered is: why can the government take money via taxes (property) from person A and give it to person B? In Calder v. Bull (1798) Chief Justice Samuel Chase wrote that any law compelling such a transfer of property would be unconstitutional. Welfare violates the Takings Clause because property cannot be taken for private reasons as outlined by Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull. Of course, the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment allows taking tax revenue (property) without just compensation. But the Sixteenth Amendment does not allow takings for private reasons. Sure, the federal government can take property (tax money) for pubic reasons such as building infrastructure, the military, post offices, and other enumerated reasons. But there is no grant of power in the Sixteenth Amendment to take money for private reasons. In other words, there is no Constitutional basis for welfare. If Person A gives money (property) to Person B through government coercion that contract should be void. Under such a scenario neither Person is “pursuing” happiness under such a contract. Person B may be happy, but receiving happiness via coercion is not the same as pursuing happiness. On the other hand, if Person A gives money (property) to Person B through the kindness of their heart (charity), then the contract is legal. Person A is happy for doing the right thing and Person B pursued happiness via a charity or gift without any government interference and coercion.

Besides, welfare has been proven it does not work. Despite over a trillion dollars a year in local, state, and federal taxes into poverty programs the homeless and poverty rates continue to grow or have remained unchanged since they were implemented in the 1960s. This is a sad reality because first, taking money from struggling middle class Americans makes little sense. It pushes middle class families into a lower socio-economic status. Second, taking money from wealthy Americans also makes little sense since the revenue could be used to grow the economy with more jobs and higher wages. Third, welfare taxes mean that folks have less money to contribute to charities which are far more efficient and have less wasteful spending than government programs. Fourth, welfare eliminates many individual’s pursuit of happiness because it instead makes them dependent on government handouts since welfare recipients do not have to do anything to receive their benefits. Benefits that come without any sacrifice from the recipients makes them more susceptible to government dependency and therefore they are not pursuing happiness, but instead receiving happiness. Finally, and most importantly, eliminating federal welfare programs does not mean there would be no welfare. States could implement welfare programs which again, would be more efficient and less wasteful than federal programs. Remember, in the pursuit of happiness, both parties of a contract must benefit. Obviously only one party involved in coercive welfare programs benefit from the legislation or regulation and that is the person receiving the welfare benefits (and of course, the federal government which uses tax revenue to grow in size and stature – increased power).

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Restoring the American Dream (Part II)

The 1938 case Carolene Products v. United States was another blow to working rights. In this case, the Court upheld the “Filled Milk Law” which prohibited Carolene Products from shipping its product via interstate commerce. Without any evidence, the Court decided that filled milk was unhealthy for human consumptions and could therefore be restricted. We, of course, understand today that this is not true. In fact, filled milk is better for you than regular milk. The powerful dairy lobby in both Nebbia and Carolene Products was trying to quash their competition and succeeded in doing so with the help of state legislators and the Court. Since filled milk cost 3 cents less per quart than milk, the milk lobby stopped a reputable company from pursing its right to a lawful occupation. Similarly, in Nebbia, the Court was successful in undercutting mom and pop shops trying to compete against big time dairy producers.

Carolene Products is more famous for Justice Stone’s footnote four than its misguided decision. In footnote four Justice Stone listed a few instances where a state law may come under stricter scrutiny in determining its constitutionality. For instance, if any rights in the Bill of Rights are abridged then stricter scrutiny is needed to evaluate the State law. Also, if a minority is disenfranchised then the law would face stricter scrutiny. But, both Nebbia and Carolene Products showed that economic minorities did not matter since the Court held that a mom and pop shop and a single company competing against the national dairy lobby held no minority status. What’s worse, footnote four protects only those rights found in the Bill of Rights, not those rights outlined in Justice McReynolds opinion in Meyer or Society Sisters. For instance, McReynolds says there is a fundamental right to work a lawful occupation but Justice Stone’s opinion holds the right to a lawful occupation can be abridged because it is not in the Bill of Rights. Hence, the right to a lawful occupation can be denied for any rational reason even if is dumb and makes no sense because it fails to promote any government interest such as protecting the general welfare and safety of its citizens. Both Meyer and Carolene Products are good law today, but despite being separated by just 15 years, they conflict. For example, in Williamson v. Lee Optical (1954) the Court upheld an Oklahoma law prohibiting Lee Optical from doing what Lens Crafters does today without any sensible reason. In Anastaplo (1961) the Court held that an Illinois law prohibiting lawyers from joining the bar because they do not recite an oath of office is constitutional. George Anastaplo was denied becoming a lawyer because he would not recite an oath claiming he was not a communist. Anastaplo was not a communist, but he thought a person’s right to conscience had nothing to do with becoming a lawyer or any type of profession for that matter. He was right. The Carolene products precedent clearly diminished the rights outlined in Meyer.

Pursuing happiness would be much easier if the Court would reinstate the validity of Lochner and the freedom of contract. Or the Court could simply use Meyer precedent to protect the right of contract. Freedom of contract would have advantages when deciding cases other than economic freedom such as making decisions simpler and easier to understand. Take, for instance, Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – the interracial and gay marriage cases respectively. In Loving the Court used the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a Virginia law which prohibited the marriage between white and black persons. The defense argued the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because both persons in the marriage (black and white) faced equal punishment. But, since the law did not ban marriages between white persons and other minorities the Court held the law did, in fact, violate the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, this essentially means if Virginia rewrote its statute to ban any type of interracial marriage then the law would be held constitutional. Although this did not happen, this scenario illustrates the Court’s decision was highly flawed. If, instead, the Court used Meyer and the right of marriage or Meyer and Lochner and the right of contract, the dilemma of finding a loophole in the decision could have been avoided. Remember, marriage is a contract between two persons and their church. If the right of contract is law then any marriage regardless of race would be seen as legal.

Obergefell is even more convoluted. All of the plaintiffs in Obergefell had partners that were deceased. Thus, Obergefell became a case about government entitlements tied to marriage. Since the government provides married couples lower tax rates and estate taxes (once a person dies) those seeking gay marriage merely wanted the same financial benefits as married couples. Hence, the Court upheld Obergefell using the Equal Protection Clause because the government discriminates against single persons. This means if the government stops its discriminatory ways by no longer attaching entitlements with marriage, then gay marriage is no longer Constitutionally protected. This is more evidence that the government should not be in the business of establishing entitlements or rights. However, this disaster could have been averted, once again, if the Court used Meyer and or Lochner freedom of contract precedent. Under this situation the Court could protect every person’s right to contract which includes marriage regardless of race or gender.

Essentially, the Court in Loving and Obergefell elevated both marriage and gay-marriage as fundamental rights, but their arguments to do so are highly suspect. The freedom of contract is so strong it can be used to protect many individual rights. If both person A and person B equally benefit in their pursuit of happiness from a contract, then the government has no right to infringe upon the contract and violate individual rights. Similarly, in Griswold and Lawrence, the Court could have upheld these decisions using the freedom of contract. In Griswold, the government should have no business to interfere with the freedom of contract between a married couple’s decision over contraception. Freedom of contract could also be have been used to uphold contracts between consenting individuals who are not married such as in Lawrence. Remember, individuals enter into hundreds of contracts each day: every time we purchase or sell goods and services (property) as well as relationships (friends, spouse, companies, bosses, and children) in our pursuit of happiness. Roe, on the other hand, unconscionably breaks or voids the contract between a mother and child. There is no question that neither Party A or Party B obtains any benefit in an abortion. Party A may be relieved to get rid of an “unwanted” baby, but that situation is hardly a happy or beneficial moment if it haunts Party A for the rest of her life. Party B is exterminated so there is no benefit for them in the contract!

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Restoring the American Dream (Part I)

What is the American dream? It is precisely defined in the Declaration of Independence as “the pursuit of happiness”. No one is guaranteed happiness, but we should have a right to pursue it. What are some things people may lawfully pursue to be happy? They include the right to own and sell property as well as those rights brilliantly outlined in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) by Justice McReynolds: “Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Moreover, Reynolds opined “The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect.” Two years later McReynolds also delivered the majority opinion in a similar case: Society Sisters v. Pierce. Both Meyer and Society Sisters are considered good law today, but unfortunately government laws and the Court only use this precedent when protecting privacy rights. McReynolds understood the American dream, which modern progressive and conservative courts have failed to recognize. Meyer and Society Sisters are often cited in cases together. This precedent was used to find a right of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the right to choose abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973), and the right to consenting sex in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). For this reason, Meyer is sometimes called the first privacy case. But, this is not true. Meyer and Society Sisters were not privacy cases. Both Meyer and Society Sisters addressed the right to acquire useful knowledge. In Meyer the Court struck down a Nebraska law forbidding a child under 10 years of age from learning a foreign language. In Society Sisters the Court struck down a law prohibiting students from attending private school. Education is not a privacy issue. While Griswold (Contraception) and Lawrence (Sex) are privacy issues, Roe (abortion) is not necessarily a private matter since clinics, nurses, hospitals, doctors, and others may be privy of an abortion. Also, in abortion cases, medical records are kept. Yes, just as in the case of a student in education, these types of records are private but certain people will always have access to them.

No one will argue or dispute the fact that a person’s happiness is directly proportional to one’s education, work, family, church, and home as outlined in Meyer. While privacy within the home has gotten some protection from the Court, the same cannot be said of a person’s right to education, property, and work. In fact, those fundamental rights are continually being diminished by government laws which are upheld by the Court. If privacy is protected within the home, but if a person’s right to education, property, and work are not protected then the American Dream and the pursuit of happiness is essentially gone. Also, it is important to remember that even privacy rights are not absolute as lawful citizens can be monitored by the National Security Agency (NSA) without warrants. What’s worse, police can even monitor our phone GPS data to obtain information without warrants (Carpenter v. United States, 2018). Big Brother is watching us, with or without privacy rights. Carpenter is an interesting case. Although it appears that the Court is going to limit authorities from accessing GPS data from phones without a warrant, their rationale is going to be flawed. Carpenter illustrates the Court’s historically misguided view to protect privacy rights and neglect property rights. Carpenter should be a property case because authorities are trespassing on personal property (phones) without a warrant. However, it looks as though Carpenter will be decided using privacy concerns. Carpenter shows the willingness of the Court to protect privacy rights (an elevated right) but neglect property rights (enumerated right) which is important as we look at why the American dream is dying.

The 1905 case Lochner v. New York was a decision that has lived in infamy. In this case, the Court struck down a New York law regulating how many hours bakers can work in a week. However, the Court upheld all of the other provisions of the New York law to promote public health and safety. Lochner upheld the same freedom of contract alluded to in Meyer 18 years later. The Court held that the freedom of contract between an employer and employee was paramount and legislatures cannot deny that right or freedom under the guise of public health and safety. Lochner was a huge win for working rights, but those rights would be short lived. Lochner was officially overruled in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937. But government economic regulation started in Nebbia v. New York (1934). The Court held that a New York law prohibiting selling a quart of milk under 9 cents was lawful. Hence, the conviction of a grocer who sold two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread for 18 cents was upheld. Why can’t a businessman set a price that is satisfactory to him and his customers? The whole purpose of a contract is for both Party A and Party B to be happy with the result. In Nebbia, both A and B were happy so why is it necessary to regulate this contract? How can people pursue a lawful occupation without government interference if the government regulates their work hours, overtime, wages, child labor laws, and the prices at which they can sell products? The government’s purpose is to protect rights and not to regulate, prohibit, deny, manage, or disparage rights without any compelling government reason.