Hate is Not Welcome Here

“Hate is Not Welcome Here” is one of the latest polarizing campaign slogans of the progressive Left. This is the progressive response to the Trump presidency which they feel is founded on hate and supports White Supremacy and misogyny. For instance, since Trump wants to build a wall and deport illegal aliens he therefore must hate Hispanics and immigrants. Sure, much of what Trump says makes little sense, but there are two sides to every debate. Liberals cannot understand why conservatives back Trump’s “hateful” immigration stance and therefore must be complicit in the hate towards minorities. Progressives cannot put race aside and see that being an illegal alien is against the law; illegal aliens cost the taxpayers billions each year while more Americans sink into poverty and homelessness; some illegal aliens take jobs from American citizens; illegal aliens take opportunities away from persons wanting to legally immigrate to the United State; some illegal aliens are violent criminals supporting drug cartels; and securing our borders is essential to thwart both the ever-increasing rise of terrorism and the illegal drug market in the United States. The primary role of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens by promoting their health and safety. Hence, the government has a duty to protect our borders from both illegal aliens and criminal influence. This has nothing to do about racism. If illegal aliens (white Canadians) were coming from Canada, then the government would have a responsibility to halt that activity. I can certainly put myself in the shoes of an illegal immigrants solely trying to help their family since I understand being poor. I do empathize, but if the law allowed one exception then you must allow an infinite number of exemptions or that is discrimination. That is right, allowing illegal immigration is discriminatory to other immigrants who want to come here lawfully. But do progressives understand the pain of individuals losing jobs or losing loved ones to crimes or drugs caused by illegal immigration? The problem with progressives is that they will never stand in the shoes of others that are suffering unless it fits their ideology.

Progressivism was founded on evil and hate (slavery, segregation, eugenics, miscegenation laws, abortion, and sterilization to name a few things). Nazis used the American progressive platform as a model for its movement. Revered progressives were bigots: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black (Member of the KKK), Margaret Sanger, and Louis Brandies to name a few. The Nazis used Oliver Wendell Holmes’s Buck v. Bell (1927) decision for their defense at the Nuremburg trials for WWII war crimes. Was FDR’s internment policy of Asian Americans (upheld by the Court and Black delivered the majority opinion) really that much different than Nazi interment camps? Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on a vision of a superior White race similar to the Nazis plan to cleanse the world of defective persons. Sanger would be proud of the progress that has been made in abortion rights, especially since abortion is being used predominately by African-American and to eliminate other defectives such as downs syndrome persons. This was Sanger vision of abortion: to be used to eliminate defective persons and cleanse America of ethnic races. Downs syndrome persons can live fairly normal lives so how is eliminating persons based on mental capacity any different or less discriminatory than China family’s propensity to abort female babies? It is not, they are both hate and evil. After all, we would not tolerate any one discriminating against these persons after they are born.

Since Trump has become president he has been the target of fake news stories, constant investigation, illegal surveillance, and a host of other types of activities that no president has ever had to face. Sure, Trump can be his own worst enemy, but that does not mean people should stoop to his vindictive level. Moreover, progressive hate groups such as Antifa are holding violent protests. Progressive criminals have attacked GOP Congress and Senate members. A Democrat killed nearly 60 persons at a conservative country music concert in Las Vegas. The amount of hate speech coming from progressive public officials has been extremely alarming calling for the death of the President, assault of the President, impeachment without a crime, and the wishing of ill will on anyone conservative. I see progressives using the same tactics that they are charging our President as being guilty of initiating. No, the only hate I am seeing in the age of Donald Trump is clearly coming from progressives. If none of this is bad enough, the most troubling Trump news story was the one where he was caught on tape talking about sexually attacking women. But since that has happened, dozens of liberal media and Hollywood moguls have fallen for what appears to be even more serious attacks against women. Trump’s words were bad, but these progressive hypocrite’s actions have been much worse.

I am not saying conservatives are not guilty of hate including defiling women. Hate is something that knows no political ideology. But most of the hate stories issued by media outlets against conservatives since the Trump election have been proven to be false. It makes no sense for Trump supporters to commit the acts of hate that have been reported. Maybe if Trump lost then maybe some of these stories would be believable, but increased acts of racism triggered by a victory makes absolutely no sense. For instance, hate and violence by far right was more common after Obama victories (Dylan Roof and the Gabby Giffords shooting to name a few). My point is that the slogan “Hate is Not Welcome Here” has become an oxymoron for progressives. They seem to welcome hate with open arms (i.e. Al Franken, Bill Clinton, and Jon Conyers) so long as the hater is on their side of the political spectrum. I also have issue with slogans that should be a truism. After all, why would anyone have to politicize the fact that “hate is not welcome” in a political party if it does not exist? My intuition tells me if a person advertises that they are against hate, then they are at least spiteful and vindictive individuals with absolutely no self-awareness. I see a lot signs denying hateful behavior, but I also see more hate and anger than ever before, and right now most of it is coming from progressives. Liberals and progressives have become and or have always been everything they claim to hate.

Restoring the Constitution: Afflict Liberals with New Deal Precedent (Part IV)

Many horrible Court decisions will take a revolution (like the New Deal) to overturn. The Contract Cause states “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts”. In other words, contracts between borrowers and lenders should be honored without government interference so long as the contract was not coerced in any matter. However, the Contract’s Clause has been rewritten by the Court in Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) and the Gold Clause Cases (1935). Blaisdell protected a home owner from eviction who defaulted on their payments due to emergency reasons (the Great Depression). However, Blaisdell has been used by modern courts to treat “Corporate shareholders and employees as second-class citizens whose rights can be sacrificed to protect homeowners and farmers.” Consider another example. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution reads “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States.” But, in 2001, in Whitman v. American Trucking Association, the Court basically provided government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the right to make and enforce laws. In many cases, these new laws, mandates, regulations, and statutes come without any oversight from Congress. This allows Congress to rightfully claim ignorance when voters are outraged by government interference. Consider that there are well over 300 government agencies that are free to make up and enforce laws without the knowledge of Congress. This is how things such as the IRS targeting conservative charitable groups can happen. With Congress out of the loop, agencies are free to push the political agenda of their choosing. What would happen if the Trump administration targeted liberal organizations – would liberals finally cry foul and maybe then we finally can limit the lawmaking role of government agencies?

If this is not bad enough, the most egregious violation of civil liberties is the blatant disregard the Court has for economic freedom and the right for individuals to work a lawful profession. Over 20% of all professions now require some kind of license. State and local governments use this power to limit competition in certain occupations such as taxi drivers, cosmetology, barbers, and florists. The downfall of economic freedom started in the Slaughter House cases (1873) where the Court held government protected monopolies are acceptable. Economic freedom was preserved, but it was short lived, when the Court in Lochner v. New York (1905) held government regulations over work hours for bakery workers was unconstitutional. The Court held employers and employees had a freedom of contract over work hours. All of this changed, however, in Nebbia v. New York (1934). In this case, the Court held a New York law which denied a store owner the right to sell milk and bread at a reasonable price that was to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of his customers was constitutional. This trend continued in Carolene Products v. United States (1938). In this case the Court upheld the Filled Milk Act which denied the manufacturers of filled milk to sell their products. Why? Because the milk lobby was powerful in both this case and the Nebbia case. Without any evidence, the Court held that filled milk was “unhealthy” for humans. This, of course, we know is false, since modern science has found filled milk is better for you than milk. But filled milk sold for 7 cents a quart compared to 10 cents for a quart of milk in 1938. Hence, the milk lobby influenced the Court to eliminate their competition – essentially denying thousands of people the right to work a lawful profession. Footnote Four of the Carolene Products opinion held that the Court could view state laws with stricter scrutiny under some specific conditions such as if the Bill of Rights was violated or if a minority group is involved. Footnote Four made no mention of individual fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution but protected by the due process clause, the privileges and immunities clause, and the Ninth Amendment in our Constitution. Hence, any law prohibiting the fundamental right to work a lawful job without government interference merely faces a rational basis test (laws facing rational scrutiny are never found unconstitutional) instead of strict scrutiny. In other words, the fears of our founding fathers at the Constitutional convention have come to fruition. Most founders were against adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution because they feared it would limit those individual rights that were not enumerated. The anti-federalists pushed for a Bill of Rights if states were to ratify the document. Madison cleverly tried to work around this dilemma by introducing the Ninth Amendment which states those rights not included in the Constitution or Bill of Rights should not be denied or disparaged for any reason. Madison did not know the Ninth Amendment would be the most ignored Amendment in our history. For proof of denial of unenumerated rights take, for instance, Williamson v. Lee Optical (1954) where the Court denied persons in Oklahoma to do what Lens Crafters does today. The Court admitted the law did not make much sense, but a dumb law could still have some rational basis. Similarly, in 1961, the Court held in Anastaplo that a person could be denied access to the Illinois bar if they were a communist. Anastaplo was not a communist, but he refused to take the Illinois bar oath which makes people assure they are not a communist. Anastaplo, correctly asserts that political or religious affiliation does not matter when applying for a job. In Anastaplo, the Court not only denied a person to a lawful profession, they also denied a person of both the right to conscience and First Amendment Rights. Of course, Red Scares throughout the 20th century denied hundreds of people these same rights.

The Right to work is something that both the Right and Left should want protected. It boggles my mind that something like abortion may be protected, but the right to sell coffins or to be florist face unbelievable road blocks including cost prohibitive training. Does it really make sense for persons to obtain a funeral director license and learn how to embalm corpses to sell a box? Does it make sense to obtain a license to be florist? Of course not, a florist is an artist! Are we going to ask painters and sculptors to obtain work licenses? This is a violation of not only someone’s right to work, but also their First Amendment rights. Sure, it makes sense to regulate some critical professions for the health and safety of the public such as medical doctors. But, the regulation is out of hand. “The pursuit of happiness” includes our right to seek a lawful profession. Nobody will ever argue that a person’s happiness is directly proportional to their happiness with their work. Nobody is guaranteed to be “happy” but when the government restricts the “pursuit” to be happy then government is doing the opposite of what they are chartered to do. Government was put in place to protect our rights, not to “create”, “prohibit”, “interfere”, or “deny” rights (without some very compelling government reason). There is no reason to make it harder for anyone, especially for the poor, to find and work a lawful profession without government interference.

Do liberals and progressives understand how much government regulation and new interpretations of the Constitution have hurt the poor? I believe they are oblivious as to how local governments use property takings to bolster wealthy land developers and national chain stores at the expense of the poor. I believe they are oblivious as to how government regulations make it almost impossible for many poor persons to earn a lawful living in many professions. I believe liberals are oblivious to how supporting “guilty property” have attacked the poor much harder than the middle class and wealthy citizens. Liberals also like to attack charities that help the poor such as Little Sisters of the Poor. Liberals will attack such organizations because they do not agree over abortion and the contraception mandate in ObamaCare. But it makes little sense to attack an organization that helps poor people over one single issue. In effect, these lawsuits take money away from people who can use it. If liberals will not or cannot accept the fact that progressivism is hurting their own base (the poor), then maybe it is time for some competent conservatives to argue these points to minorities in their “blighted” neighborhoods.

Restoring the Constitution: Afflict Liberals with New Deal Precedent (Part III)

In the United States v. Butler the Court held that the Agriculture Adjustment Act was unconstitutional. But dictum in that opinion opened the door for the Court to uphold the Social Security Act in Helvering v. Davis just a few short years later using the General Welfare Clause. By all accounts, the General Welfare Clause meaning at the Constitutional Convention was that the Federal Government can protect the General Welfare by only acting upon enumerated provisions within the Constitution. In other words, if the General Welfare Clause was a provision that yielded the Federal Government with unlimited power, then why enumerate any powers since they are simply truisms? Congress has no grant of power in the Constitution to start any social welfare programs such as Social Security. By 1987, when the Court decided Dole v. South Dakota, the line of cases Butler, Helvering, and Dole gave the federal government unlimited coercive spending power. Today, we are starting to see how this abuse of government power can be used against liberal agendas such as sanctuary states and cities. Trump’s actions will ultimately go before the Supreme Court but Butler – Helvering – Dole should provide him ammunition to defend his policies to withold funding to sanctuary cities. Liberals revere Helvering, but maybe they will start to see how expanding government can work both for and against their benefit.

Roe v. Wade (1973) made abortion legal throughout the United States. In his Roe opinion, Justice Brennan said the Court had no business defining when life begins and then went on to do exactly that in his opinion: Brennan defined when a fetus is viable and when the fetus is not viable. Since Roe liberals, governments, and the Court have been busy providing preferential treatment to certain groups of people including the LBGT community (Romer v. Evans), racial minorities (Grutter v. Bollinger), and women (United States v. Virginia) in the name of equal protection. Liberals, governments, and courts have even provided citizenship rights to enemy combatants, nature, and animals where they cannot be denied due process of law. Conservative groups have been able to garner more rights for corporations (ever since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886). Now, consider the Supreme Court decision Bennis v. Michigan. In that case, the Court held that authorities can confiscate private property without compensation. In Bennis, authorities confiscated a car after apprehending suspects conducting an illegal sexual act (prostitution) in the car. However, the perpetrators apprehended in the case did not own the car, they illegally broke into the car to perform their sexual activity. Tina Bennis, who took no part in the crime, merely wanted to retain her property, but in the eyes of the Court the car was “guilty property”. Taking property from innocent victims is not only wrong, it is like kicking a person when they are down. The Bennis opinion provided a scary modern precedent to what is called civil forfeiture or “guilty property” cases. Could authorities confiscate a car, boat, or plane if a single passenger had a single illegal marijuana “joint”? Under Bennis, the answer is yes. In United States v. One 1970 Pontiac GTO: The United States sued a car. In fact, there have been several cases where a car was a defendant or plaintiff: One 1958 Plymouth Sudan v. Pennsylvania and United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala. There are other cases where the property was a boat such as United States v. One 1976 Chris-Craft 27 Foot Fiber Glass Boat. That is right, we may sue corporations and persons, but we can also sue property and even nature. All of this precedent would allow an opening for conservatives to file for fetus rights instead of trying to overturn Roe. It does not matter if a fetus is considered a citizen or even a viable human being, liberal courts have shown that citizenship or personhood is not necessary to garner Constitutional protection (equal protection or due process). Why can’t a “fetus” obtain preferential treatment and rights. After all, the fetus is unable to protect its own rights. Why can’t a fetus have rights equivalent to non-citizens, nature, property, or corporations? Non-citizens, nature, property, and corporations may not be allowed to vote, but they all can receive due process protections in our courts. So, it begs for us to ask the question: why can’t a fetus receive due process protections in our courts regardless of personhood viability?

Gay marriage and marriage have been elevated by the Court as a fundamental right. However, gay marriage was elevated using equal protection in an odd manner: not because everyone should have marriage rights but because marriage was a form of entitlement. Since the government ties tax breaks and estate tax rates with marital status, gay members of our society wanted the same protections. In other words, gays were not wanting marriage for reasons regarding love, but for financial reasons. Hence, the institution of marriage is not what is discriminating, it is those government entitlements that are discriminating (treating single persons differently from married persons). Remember, churches often refuse to marry people for a number of reasons including compatibility issues, not just their faith and believes. Hence, it is difficult to say churches are discriminating since anyone can be denied the right to marry is particular churches. If gay marriage was upheld, it should have been done using our right to freedom of contract. No one can deny that marriage is a contract between a two people and possibly their faith organization. However, liberals do not like to use freedom of contract or economic freedom because it would mean restoring faith in older decisions such as Lochner v. New York which both conservatives and liberals abhor. Lochner protected an individual’s right to seek a lawful profession without government interference. Liberals dislike this because restoring Lochner would mean overturning the entire progressive New Deal (union protection, wage and hour regulations, social security, and so on). And both conservatives and liberals did not like the fact the Lochner Court elevated a right which was not enumerated in the Constitution. After all, if freedom of contract is protected for marriage, then freedom of contract should be protected between employer and employee. But, it is ironic that the Lefty Justices decided to elevate marriage rights just how Righty Justices elevated economic rights. So, there is really no difference in the Court’s jurisprudence reasoning in Lochner and Obergefell (gay marriage decision). In essence, the Court is actually restoring a part of Lochner.

Restoring the Constitution: Afflict Liberals with New Deal Precedent (Part II)

In Berman v. Parker (1954) the Court held that cities can condemn property in poor neighborhoods to refurbish “blighted” communities. In essence, Berman allows for the lawful taking of property from the poor which is, in turn, given to wealthy land developers. The poor also loses because their “just compensation” is extremely low for depressed lands and therefore the compensation is inadequate for the poor to find a new home in a decent community. In essence, Berman is a significant cause for homelessness. In Kelo v. New London (2005) the Court held that taking private property for private purposes is permissible if the takings would result in a public benefit such as more jobs and more tax revenue. Hence, the Court changed the meaning of the Takings Clause from “public use” to “public benefit”. Kelo is dangerous precedent because no one is safe from these types of takings: local governments can simply condemn your home and give the property to a land development company that will benefit the public with more jobs and tax revenue. Governments even use regulatory takings to take private property without just compensation. In Penn Central Transportation v. New York (1978) the Court held that a regulation making Grand Central Station a Historic Landmark that denied Penn Central from building on property they own was not only constitutional, but New York did not have to compensate Penn Central. In Tahoe-Sierra Council v. Tahoe Reginal Planning Agency (2002) the Court held that temporary takings through regulation was constitutional. In Tahoe-Sierra the Court held that regulations preventing property owners from building on their land for 20 years was not only acceptable, it can be done without just compensation. So, what is the solution? Maybe it is time for local governments to condemn liberal neighborhoods so they can build a Walmart, Target, and other national chain stores to generate jobs and more tax revenue? Or maybe the EPA can generate regulations placing a moratorium on home owners from obtaining building permits for 20 years in cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and other liberal cities. The EPA can make up some phony excuse claiming they are merely trying to prevent excessive emissions in densely populated areas. If this were to happen, liberals would be up in arms, and they may try to overturn Kelo, Berman, Tahoe-Sierra, and Penn Central and restore the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment. After all, targeting liberals is no different than when liberals targeted conservatives in the Obama administration (IRS and Journalists). The bottom line, if privacy is protected within the home, then shouldn’t the home and private property be protected from at least takings for private reasons as prescribed in our Constitution?

In the line of cases University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) the Court held that race may be used as a “plus factor” when considering diversity for admission into schools or for jobs. The Court held that using race as a quota system was unconstitutional, but using race as a determinate for admission is not much different than a quota system. They are both discriminatory. In Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) the Court held the separate but equal doctrine was constitutional. Hence, the era of racial segregation was born. In his Plessy dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan said the Constitution was “color-blind”. But the Bakke and Bollinger cases illustrate that race “matters” as Justice Sotomayor continually reminds us in her misguided opinions. If race matters, then maybe Tanny’s ruling in Dred Scott was correct? Essentially, Bakke and Bollinger are an attempt to overcome past injustices against African-Americans. But when do we finally put an end to racial discrimination because Bakke and Bollinger are no better decisions than Dred Scott? All these opinions discriminate. Consider how the Michigan Law School in Bollinger bypassed more qualified Hispanics and Native Americans in favor of African-Americans who had lower grades and test scores. Therefore, Bollinger was discriminatory against all races at the expense of African-Americans (In other words, the Michigan Law School was not trying help minorities or women, but only blacks). Regardless, discrimination is discrimination and the Constitution does not permit it. What if conservatives pushed for “equal protection” and diversity for admissions into schools and jobs for individuals with conservative political affiliations. We know that liberals dominate positions within the public-school system: teachers and administrators. I doubt liberals will like conservatives using University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger precedent to uphold equal protection so more conservatives can land public teaching and administration jobs. This would counter the liberal brainwashing power in the educational process on our youth. After all, there is no difference in discriminating using race or gender and discriminating using political affiliation. The Constitution is not only color-blind, but it also does not know any political ideology or socio-economic status. But liberals cannot merely pick and choose which types of discrimination are acceptable and which forms are not. The 1961 case Anastaplo is further proof that the Court can discriminate based on political ideology. The details of this case are discussed later in this blog.

Is Building a Border Wall a Moral Issue?

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “Facts don’t matter when you are morally right” she is practicing both social and moral justice to tax the wealthy at a 70% federal rate. Both the Right and Left are guilty of using moral and social justice throughout American history. For instance, conservatives would use moral justice to ban alcohol, gay sex, marijuana, sex toys, pornography, gay marriage, and masturbation to name a few issues. Liberals would use moral justice to defend climate change, higher taxes, takings without compensation, illegal aliens (building the wall is now a moral issue), entitlements, diversity, and affirmative action to name a few issues.

Anything that violates the rights of any American, regardless of morality, is against any true meaning of the Constitution to protect everyone equally. Individuals can violate their own rights and morality code so long as their actions affect no one else. For instance, using alcohol, sex toys, or masturbation hurts no one and violate no one rights when done in private and with consent. Morality and social justice are just excuses to persecute the minority in favor of what the majority wants. What does the majority want? More money and entitlements at the expense of their neighbors. But nothing in the Natural Law (morality) or the Constitution permit taking money from a private citizen and giving it to another private citizen. The Fifth Amendment Takings clause permits taking property from private citizens for public use, not private use.

Is abortion morally right, regardless of the facts? According to Natural Law it is the job of citizens to protect the rights of the unborn. This concept plays into the hands of liberals who want to “save” the planet from climate change or conservatives who want to pay down our debt. These are both moral concepts but they conflict: We cannot save the planet by bankrupting future generations. Just because something is morally right, it does not mean government should tax people beyond reproach. This would make taxing for climate change morally wrong. Besides, the government always wants to spend money to solve a problem and very rarely do they want to try innovative means to solve a problem without putting everyone in debt. Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are the worst. They want to take other people’s money but they will go all out to protect their own wealth. And when it comes to money, there is never enough. As fast as Democrats would implement a 70% tax on the wealthy, they would seek to increase that rate.

Morality is about individuals making the right choice. It is not about the government making what it perceives as the right choice, especially at the expense of others. Morality is not about being concerned what our neighbors are doing, it is being concerned about what we are doing. If people follow morality codes then they will help neighbors in need without government intrusion. Government interference turns welfare into a Right and Left argument, creates expensive lobbying, creates class warfare, and uses the power, interest, and partiality principles which will violate the rights of many.

Think about this, if welfare is a human right then government interference is a violation of that right. Take the government run Veterans Affairs (VA). How many veteran’s rights were violated by government intrusion into their healthcare? If government is making welfare more expensive, cannot properly protect the identity of citizens, generates a monopoly preventing citizens from opening businesses in medical fields, or generates mandates, rules, and regulations that help some but hurt others then they are violating the rights of citizens. A one-size fits all government run welfare program will violate the rights of some while benefiting others. This is wrong. Besides, what people like Ocasio-Cortez fail to realize that there is a big difference between taxing income and wealth. And she certainly does not understand basic economics and the Laffer effect on the economy. Remember, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Russia do not care about facts either and look at the status of their socialized countries.

It is not the job of Congress to implement the will of the constituents that support them. No, it is the job of Congress to protect the rights of ALL citizens. It is time to stop moral and social justice and it is time to protect the rights of all citizens by practicing the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity: To allow local governments and communities help their neighbors.

There is nothing moral about violating the rights of some at the expense of others. Morality is part of Natural Law. The Right and Left only defend Natural Law when it is convenient. Natural Law is the science of reason. This means humans must make free-will decisions based on reason without emotion and feelings. And when reasonable free-will choices conflict, it is then up to humans to choose the more moral choice. Right now, most government decisions are not rational, hence there is no moral choice. For instance, diversity, affirmative action, and protecting preferred classes of citizens is no different than the jurisprudence that led to many of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history: Dred Scott (Slavery), Plesy (Segregation), Buck (Sterilization), and Korematsu (Internment). These are not rational choices and therefore they cannot be moral.

Ocasio-Cortez is wrong that morality does not include facts. I may have an opinion that tattoos and sex toys are immoral. But opinions are not facts backed up by reason. First, tattoos and sex toys do not harm others and therefore violate no one’s rights (if sex toys are used in private and with consent). Second, think of how shutting down sex and tattoo stores will harm the owners of those shops by violating their right to work. Hence, a reasonable decision for me is to say I do not like tattoos and sex toys, but they are not necessarily immoral. Strict Natural Law theorists may dispute this, but in my reasonable opinion there must be harm for something to be classified as immoral. Hence, to come to a moral decision, facts are necessary without emotional rhetoric.

So, what would be a rational decision for the Wall? I tend to favor border security over no security to protect American citizens from having their rights violated. But nothing is ever black and white anymore and people can certainly empathize with those who struggle in other countries. But thinking that way is using emotion and feelings. The law and morality are not about emotion and feelings. And let’s not forget any illegal alien who dilutes the vote of a citizen, takes a job that would otherwise go to a citizen, fails to pay taxes, takes entitlements, or commits a crime is violating the rights of some if not all American citizens.

Maybe we can build a wall and have boarder security for States that may want it like Arizona and Texas. States like California and New Mexico can have open boarders but they will be held liable for any instance of a violation against the rights of an American Citizen for any future boarder crossings. Maybe States can decide if they want illegal aliens residing or travelling through their borders. After all, there must be restitution for a violation of rights. This is probably not a good compromise, but it is the only one I can think of using Natural Law and morality. Sure, it seems morally correct and decent to allow every starving and disenfranchised person around the globe to enter our country. But is this reasonable? No, because it is cost prohibitive and at the same time, we have millions of citizens in this country suffering. Since it is not reasonable, it is not moral.

Restoring the Constitution: Afflict Liberals with New Deal Precedent (Part I)

Since the progressive New Deal Court expanded the powers of government to be infinite, maybe it is time to use much of this precedent to afflict ill will on liberals. Do not get me wrong, I normally do not wish ill will on anyone. But until the Left feels the impact of their “living Constitutional” rulings, nothing will be done to correct these egregious injustices. Actually, some Constitutional corrections have already started to happen. For instance, in Wickard v. Filburn (1941), the progressive Court expanded the meaning of the commerce clause to cover just about anything. However, recent decisions in Lopez v. United States, Morrison v. United States, and Bond v. United States the Court restricted the commerce clause to cover only things that are economic in nature. The modern Court also used Wickard v. Filburn to attack a topic close to liberal’s hearts: medical marijuana. In Raich v. Gonzales (2005) the Court held that persons in California could not grow small amounts medical marijuana to overcome bodily pain caused by various medical disorders (even when prescribed by a doctor). Raich, was actually an outcome where the conservative sect of the Court incorrectly applied moral standards over personal rights. After all, shouldn’t the “pursuit of happiness” mean for persons to find ways to avoid pain? Of course, Filburn and Raich could be further used to prohibit the growth of small amounts of marijuana for personal use (states that allow recreational marijuana also allow persons to grown small amounts of the drug for personal consumption). Liberals have assailed rulings such as Wickard, but cry foul over rulings such as Raich. They cannot have both ways. Maybe, if the government starts to pressure liberals using the same precedent they revere, then maybe they will start to see the light.

There are other examples where terrible progressive rulings have been overruled. For instance, the Court has reversed liberal free speech restrictions on campaign contributions using liberal interpretations of free speech to include expressions such as to burn the American Flag. Thus, McConnell v. FEC has essentially been overruled by Citizens United. After all, money is the most common form of property used by persons to express themselves. Thus, it makes sense to lift monetary restrictions and caps placed on campaign contributions so people can express their political views without any First Amendment restrictions.

Also, if the progressive FDR Court can deprive American citizens due process of the law and lock them up in internment camps for national security reasons (Korematsu v. United States), then why should Trump be denied the right to deny immigrants access to the United States for national security reasons?

Laws and regulations which attack businesses, protect unions, and deny citizens the right to pursue a lawful profession without government interference have been liberal favorites. But, competitive federalism allows citizens and corporations to “vote with their feet” and move to states with right to work laws. This forces liberal states to change or face a mass exodus of tax revenue which is exactly what is happening in Midwest and Northeast for several decades. Companies and individuals are moving to the South for better climates and better tax situations.

The Court denied gun rights in United States v. Miller nearly 80 years ago. Circuit Courts used Justice McReynolds convoluted decision in Miller to declare gun rights were not individual, but collective. But the modern Conservative court used liberal tactics to elevate non-constitutional rights such as the right to self-defense. The right of self-defense provided conservatives the opening they needed to declare gun rights are individual and not collective rights in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago. Since the 1960s, liberal Courts have been correctly applying the Bill of Rights to the states to protect individual rights, except for of course, the Second Amendment. It was just a matter of time before these shenanigans caught up to these openly bias liberal justices. After all, judges cannot pick and choose which clauses and amendments they like and which ones they do not in the Constitution. Judges must take the good with the bad. For instance, I do not like the Takings Clause, but unfortunately eminent domain is a lawful and permanent part of our society.

Making Sense of Substantive Due Process (Part III)

Substantive due process principles took a serious hit in a few landmark cases during the 1870s. In the Slaughter House cases of 1873 the Court held a New Orleans law to monopolize the butcher business and deny the natural right to work a lawful job for many butchers was constitutional. What was worse, the Court decision basically wrote the privileges and immunities clause out of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of the Slaughter House cases, later Courts would rely on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to elevate substantive due process rights. Also, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) the Court denied a woman the right to practice law. Even in United States v. Cruikshank (1877) the Court held that the lawful constitutional rights to bear arms and to peacefully assemble only applied to the federal government and states could deny these fundamental rights.

The most controversial substantive due process decision (other than Roe and Dred Scott) was Lochner v. New York (1905, sometimes referred to as the Bakeshop Case). In Lochner the Court upheld most of a New York law to improve bakery work conditions and sanitation issues. The one provision of the law the Court struck down was a provision to limit employee work hours to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Court held via substantive due process that a work contract between employer and employee was a natural right and government could not interfere to restrict that liberty. Lochner, today, is viewed as a terrible decision by both the right and left. I am in the minority to see it as a good decision. Some laws may have good intentions and may benefit some workers, but they could also be devastating to workers needing money to support their families. Bakery work hour limits could also be devastating to mom and pop bakery shops who are having a tough time competing against larger bakery corporations because they cannot afford to employ more workers. Besides, the New York law was arbitrary in the sense it only placed restriction on bakers and no other types of professions. By the time the Court decided Nebbia v. New York (1934) and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) during the New Deal, the Court had overturned Lochner era “right to contract” doctrine. The New Deal Court upheld any and every state and federal legislative effort to interfere with individual liberty over economic issues. Individuals no longer had an option to work the hours they wanted or decide if a union was in their best interest. Individuals could no longer make critical decisions over their own welfare. In fact, in Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955) the Court held that an Oklahoma law preventing a person from working a lawful occupation (that Lens Crafters does today) was Constitutional. The Court found the law was “rational” even if it did not entirely make sense.

The progressive era did much damage to the Constitution and individual rights. Justices such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandies trampled on people’s right: From Mueller v. Oregon (1905, denying women the right to work), Bailey v. Alabama (1916, enslaving Blacks in prison for violating work contracts), Buck v. Bell (1927, compulsory sterilization), Schenck v. United States (1917, placing people in prison for publishing anti-draft pamphlets) to Kormatsu v. United States (1943, interning Asian Americans). Justice Holmes would have gone further if he could. In his Abrams v. United States dissent Holmes wrote “persecution for the expression of opinions seems perfectly logical.” What’s even worse, in his dissent in Kawananakoa v. Polybank Holmes wrote that citizens had no right to sue the federal government.

Substantive due process has been pivotal in protecting many individual rights throughout our history: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923, the right to learn a foreign language among other things including marriage, the right to a legal profession, and the right to contract to name a few), Pierce v. Society Sisters (1925, the right to educate children in private schools), Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942, the right to procreate), Rochin v. California (1952, the right for individuals to be free from any government action that may “shock the conscience” and violate individual rights), O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975, right of non-dangerous mentally ill to avoid confinement), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, the right to privacy – although it was not very well defined since the right is not absolute), Moore v. East Cleveland (1977, the right for a grandmother to live with their grandchildren), BMW v. Gore (1996, the freedom from excessive punitive damages), Troxel v. Granville (2000, the right for parents to make decisions for their children), Lawrence v. Texas (2003, the right to private consensual sexual behavior), and McDonald v. Chicago (2012, the right to self-defense) to name a few of many examples where substantive due process was necessary to prevent any government restrictions on individual natural rights that were not enumerated in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact, none of the above cases are controversial in any regard because they make perfect sense to prevent intrusive and unnecessary government restraint. In fact, cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) where the Court held the Sixth Amendment applied to the states was a pivotal case for individual rights. Gideon was the first of many cases where the Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states despite earlier precedent holding the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. This was not officially substantive due process because the Court was merely applying rights to individuals already outlined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, but Gideon was just as important to recognize that individual rights are protected both at the state and federal levels as any substantive due process decision. The goal and entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect individual rights first and foremost. And without any compelling government interest to violate individual rights, then the law should be voided. It is that simple.