How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better

I am proud to announce that pre-orders for my book are now available at:

https://publishizer.com/how-a-neurological-disorder-changed-my-life-for-the-better/

Single book sales are discounted at $20 and you can be kept updated with the progress of the book by subscribing to the above website.

I am also proud to announce that I am partnering with the charity The Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy. All book profits will go to their cause. Their website can be found at:

https://www.foundationforpn.org/

Below is a link to a brief summary of “My Story” published by The Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy:

https://www.foundationforpn.org/2020/07/20/patrick-bohan-my-story/?blm_aid=1058487299

The Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Foundation International is also publishing “My Story” at a later date and their website is at:

https://www.gbs-cidp.org/

I have Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN) and that is a very rare subset of peripheral neuropathy and GBS and CIDP types of neuropathy.

These are very good causes and I hope you are willing to join me to fight these illnesses that inflict millions of Americans and people around the globe.

Erasing History means the History of Rights Violations will Persist

Progressives want to erase history by tearing down and redacting any mention of any confederate or slave owner. Erasing history is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is a erasing the truth. How is this any different than the behavior of Holocaust deniers? Of course, any current person preaching these things would have been racist too if they were born in the Confederacy. None the less, erasing history is dangerous because history has a way of repeating itself. If you read my book (Defending Freedom of Contract), I do not like the term racism for a few reasons. First, it is referenced way too often as a rallying cry of the left. They label every person who disagrees with their ideas as a racist. Second, what matters is if someone's rights are violated then that wrong needs to be corrected. For instance, it does not matter that George Floyd is black what matters is that his rights were violated and that wrong needs to be corrected. It is a lot simply and less polarizing if we view the law through rights violations and not racism.

Just as George Floyd's civil rights were violated so too were hundreds of persons affected by violent protests including many that were killed, injured or lost their businesses. Furthermore, the civil rights of home and store owners in the occupied territory of CHOP or CHAZ are also having their rights violated. Since when can any persons occupy an area of the United States without a vote. We live in a Republic that has democratic principles and the action of ceasing property is a violation of anyone rights.

My point is this, what difference does it make if we erase history only to violate the rights of persons similarly to how rights were violated during the slavery and segregation eras? It does not and this is what I mean by history has a way of repeating itself. By eliminating history of rights violations we are opening a new era of rights violations. I be willing to bet defunding the Police will lead to thousands of rights violations where persons seeking help to protect their safety and rights will be ignored. As the WHO song goes, "Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss". Political correctness and black lives matter is nothing more than shifting rights violations onto police and other non-believers. Their behavior is no different than that of the slave owners they detest.

2020: The Year of Fundamental Rights Violations

2020 is only about half way through but it will be known as the year of fundamental rights violations. Let me give you the premise of my book Defending Freedom of Contract. The Constitution protects the fundamental rights of everyone equally. In his lone dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson (the segregation case) Justice John Harlan said the Constitution is "color blind". Harlan's dissent is widely accepted as the law today. In fact, the Constitution is gender blind and socioeconomically blind. Thus, everyone is protected equally. What is a fundamental right. It is either enumerated or unenumerated rights that everyone can agree on with 100% certainty or they are undisputed. Thus, abortion is not a right because it is disputed. So what our rights? Here are some I outlined in my book: any lawful profession, to play, justice, life, liberty, freedom to contract, to travel, to own and sell property, marriage (including gay marriage), to pursuit happiness, to pursuit health, obtain knowledge, speech, religion, self defense, to vote, to safety, among the many.

Pursuit means we can pursuit these rights but they are not guaranteed. In fact, freedom of contract is powerful because it protects many of these rights and is redundant protection such as work contracts, property contracts, marriage contracts, travel contracts and so forth. Of course, many of the rights I mention are not found in Constitution such as the right to play, travel, obtain knowledge and so forth. However, these rights can be protected by the Constitution using either the Ninth Amendment or through the privileges and immunities or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Self defense and safety are not listed, but I think that these fundamental rights that protects the Second Amendment.

The government does not create rights because rights existed before governments were formed. Instead, it is the function of government to protect the rights of American citizens equally unless there is some compelling reason to violate those rights. For instance, Covid 19 brings about a dilemma because the government may restrict the rights of some to protect the fundamental rights of others for safety concerns. That said, when implementing laws that violate the rights of some to protect the rights of others it must be done least restrictive manner and it must be consistent. In other words, the law cannot discriminate. For instance, Covid 19 guideline against religion are in most cases discriminatory because it does not treat the church similar to other businesses or practices. For these reasons, the government has been unnecessarily violating the rights of citizens all throughout the Covid 19 lockdown rules.

Of course George Floyd's rights were violated, but like the Covid 19 response, the response to Floyd's death has been violating the rights of thousands of Americans each night with unnecessary violence, travel disruptions, property violations, safety violations, justice violations, work violations, life violations and so forth. In the Covid 19 government response, they went overboard to violate the rights of citizens including meaningless things such as preventing persons from doing yard work. However, the government response to Floyd's death was the opposite and they did very little to protect citizens and their businesses from violence and destruction.

Understanding the Constitution and rights is not rocket science but we seem to violate these rights in the name of moral and social justice when no such thing exist. In fact, it makes little difference that George Floyd was black because regardless of his skin color his rights were violated and that injustice needs to be corrected. Until we start viewing events through rights violation then polarity and division will continue to exist. If everything is a social injustice and racism then the Constitution has no meaning and the country will spiral in anarchy and providing one group of people more rights than others. What is happening today is no different than injustices that happened due to slavery. How is targeting police and whites with violence any different than whites did blacks and men did to women in our early history? Violating rights is violating rights.

Stay at home orders Amicus Brief (Part V)

Hierarchy of Rights

Unfortunately, there are dozens of cases when SCOTUS gave more credence to some fundamental rights over others. For example, many cases dispute that rights found in the Bill of Rights are equal. For instance, one can surmise freedom of speech is a fundamental right everyone is born with. However, it is not as easy to argue that those procedural rights found in the Sixth Amendment (trial by jury, grand jury indictment, and 12 men unanimous jury) are fundamental. This observation may be true, but the government can create laws to protect fundamental rights such as a person’s fundamental right to justice or due process of the law. Hence, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are all equal and critical to protect. For example, in Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968), SCOTUS was correct to apply the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. It was not good enough to espouse whether or not someone MAY have received a fair trial. On the contrary, it is important that someone DID receive a fair trial!

On the other hand, SCOTUS was wrong when it decided in Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 12 men juries were not essential for human justice. The Court was also wrong in Apodaca v. Oregon 406 U.S. 404 (1972) to insist unanimous verdicts were not required to ensure human justice. Sure, procedurally someone MAY have received a fair trial, but without eliminating human and enforcement errors from the equation, it is impossible to say that a person, without any doubt, DID receive a fair trial and henceforth true justice. Williams and Apodaca created a method of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. These decisions are wrong because it creates a hierarchy of rights and clauses in the Constitution when none exists. Consider the headaches Williams and Apodaca produces, for instance, when SCOTUS decided in Ballew v. Georgia 435 U.S. 223 (1978) that five-man juries were too small. Why twelve, such a random number in Williams, but five is too small in Ballew? By straying from the original meaning of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments SCOTUS creates unnecessary conundrums, which allow for judges to input biases and opinions while denying fundamental rights.

In Prout v. Starr 188 U.S. 537 (1903) Justice George Shiras dispels the myth that clauses, amendments, and provisions found within the Constitution are not equal. Furthermore, if all provision are equal then it can be scientifically proven that all rights equal. Shiras wrote: The Constitution of the United States, with the several amendments thereof, must be regarded as one instrument, all of whose provisions are to be deemed of equal validity. It would, indeed, be most unfortunate if the immunity of the individual states from suits by citizens of other states, provided for in the 11th Amendment, were to be interpreted as nullifying those other provisions which confer power on Congress to regulate commerce among the several states, which forbid the states from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, from passing any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or, without the consent of Congress, from laying any duty of tonnage, entering into any agreement or compact with other states, or from engaging in war, all of which provisions existed before the adoption of the 11th Amendment, which still exist, and which would be nullified and made of no effect if the judicial power of the United States could not be invoked to protect citizens affected by the passage of state laws disregarding these constitutional limitations. Much less can the Eleventh Amendment be successfully pleaded as an invincible barrier to judicial inquiry whether the salutary provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment have been disregarded by state enactments?

Placing Limitations on Rights

Many laws such as campaign finance and some abortion laws limit the free speech of some persons. For instance, laws restricting campaign contributions or restricting pro-life groups from protesting within so many feet from abortion clinic enterances. Although limitations are less intrusive, equal rights for all suggest everyone has the same opportunity to use their rights. Someone using their rights more than someone else does not equate to an injustice.

Conclusion

The findings in this brief are four-fold: First, since sovereignty resides with United States citizens fundamental rights cannot be abridged for any reason. Second, the list of both enumerated and unenumerated fundamental rights defined in early court cases and laws is vast. Unenumerated rights should be protected by the privileges and immunities or due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment. Third, denying or disparaging fundamental rights has been routinely accomplished in the name of national crisis using evasive methodology, rational basis scrutiny, and a hierarchy of rights. Fourth, the government wants to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens but at the same time other citizens are willing to risk their health and welfare in favor of other fundamental rights. Both sides have a valid argument. Hence, a temporary and less evasive limitation on rights would be a good compromise when faced with a national crisis. Moreover, those affected the most by Covid 19 pandemic (older retirees) and those citizens primarily affected by the economy (young workers) are for the most part mutually exclusive. Thus, it makes little sense to have mandatory stay-at-home orders for everyone. It would be much easier for governments to provide options to citizens so they can prioritize their rights. For instance, it should be possible for people to go to work or to visit a park but with reasonable restrictions or guidelines to protect the health and well being of other citizens. If, on the other hand, some citizens want to prioritize their health and safety, then they can choose to do so and stay at home. The bottom line, it is possible to find some middle ground to protect the rights of all equally. This is the best way to find balance to protect life and mitigate the disastrous effects the pandemic has had on the economy.

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part IV)

III. Denying Rights

Rational Basis Scrutiny

The assault on working rights was accomplished using rational basis scrutiny in a few important cases Nebbia v. New York 291 U.S. 502 (1934) and United States v. Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 (1938). In Nebbia, SCOTUS held a New York law prohibiting the sale of a quart of milk for under nine cents was lawful.

The rational basis test introduced in Nebbia has been used by courts to decide cases up to the present time. Rational basis places the burden of proof on those fighting government regulation. In Nebbia, SCOTUS reasoned it was rational for states to create laws that were thought to be in good faith to protect its citizens during an economic crisis (the Great Depression). Courts using a rational basis test very rarely strike down any law or statute, even if they are unconstitutional.

Carolene Products was another blow to working and contract rights using rational basis scrutiny. In this case, SCOTUS upheld the Filled Milk Act, which prohibited Carolene Products from shipping its product via interstate commerce. Since filled milk cost three cents less per quart than milk, the milk lobby stopped a reputable company from pursuing its right to a lawful occupation and it denied customers the right to contract with Nebbia or Carolene Products to purchase their products.

Carolene Products is more famous for Justice Stone’s footnote four than its misguided decision. In footnote four, Justice Stone listed a few instances in which a state law may come under stricter scrutiny when 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. In addition, if a minority is disenfranchised then the law would face stricter scrutiny. Both Nebbia and Carolene Products proved that economic minorities did not matter since SCOTUS 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 by Justice McReynolds or Rufus Peckham opinions in Meyer or Allgeyer respectively. For instance, both McReynolds and Peckham argue there is a fundamental right to work a lawful occupation or to enter into contracts, but Justice Stone’s opinion holds the right to a lawful occupation or the right of contract can be abridged using a rational basis test because they are not in the Bill of Rights. Justice Stone created what Edward Keynes called a double standard of rights.

During the great depression in Wickard v. Filburn 319 U.S. 111 (1942) SCOTUS upheld the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938 denying a citizen to grow wheat in excess of what was allotted by the AAA even if it was to feed to his livestock and family. In Wickard, the Commerce Clause was given more priority than a man’s right to happiness, family, and work. In Williamson v. Lee Optical 348 U.S. 483 (1955), SCOTUS upheld an Oklahoma law prohibiting Lee Optical from doing what Lens Crafters does today using the rational basis test originating from Nebbia and Carolene Products.

National Crisis

One of the first cases involving a dispute over public health and citizen’s rights was the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873). In this case, both sides had legitimate narratives. The government wanted to protect citizens from cholera and other diseases from improper disposal of waste from butcher stores that was contaminating drinking water. To solve the problem the government created a butcher shop monopoly. Obviously, the majority of butcher shop owners objected because they lost their right to work a lawful job. SCOTUS incorrectly sided with the government because they lost sight of one key question: Was the government’s solution the least evasive in the face of a deadly cholera crisis? The answer was categorically no because the government could have protected the health and safety of citizens without denying citizens the right to work a lawful profession. For example, protecting public health could have been accomplished by making laws for butcher business to follow when disposing of animal byproducts.

Most disputes between government and citizens civil liberties arise from national emergencies such as Covid 19, war, and the great depression. In most disputes in times of national crisis it is common for government to restrict the fundamental rights of some citizens to protect the fundamental rights of welfare, health, and safety of other citizens. First Amendment rights were restricted in the Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 when the country faced potential war with France. Similarly, in Schenck v. United States 49 U.S. 47 (1919) First Amendment rights were restricted during World War I. In Schenck, SCOTUS upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 holding citizens could not oppose the military draft during a national crisis. In Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944), SCOTUS denied interned Japanese-Americans the right to due process during World War II. In Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), SCOTUS maintained that mandatory sterilization was legal. Buck was a drastic measure to protect the welfare and safety of “normal” citizens from “undesirable” citizens such as those diseased, deformed, or intellectually challenged.

Who is to blame for the Plight of Minorities?

There is no doubt that minorities, in particular African-Americans, have never been afforded the same opportunities as many other persons. So who is to blame for this plight of minorities? There is plenty of blame to go round and this is discussed in my book Defending Freedom of Contract. That said, in some cases minorities have actually been afforded better opportunities such as with diversity or affirmative action policies and One Person, One Vote policies.

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s over 22 million dollars has been spent on fighting poverty yet the number of impoverished remains unchanged. 22 trillion dollars should be enough lift millions out of poverty unfortunately over 70% of the money is used by the government to create government agencies to fight poverty and the money does not go to the people in need. The war on poverty and liberal policies have failed to change these demographics.

Education failures such as forced integration and Robin hood policies. Every person in the country should be allowed to go to the school of their choosing and not schools that government dictates for better integration results. Throwing money at failing schools never works because money is just one of thousands variables. More money but the same educators, curriculum, and administrators and the school will continue to fail.

The civil rights movement of the 60s and better voting rights led to a shift in minority representation in elected offices. However, blacks being represented by blacks did little change the structure of communities and opportunities for blacks. For instance, why are black schools run by black administrators and local officials failing many students. Why are liberal run cities by black officials have such high crime and poverty rates? Most crime against blacks is by blacks, not whites.

Social justice led by white people with guilt is not helping the situation. In fact, it is making things worse. Feeling sorry for someone and throwing money at a problem does very little to correct the problem. Guilt places all the blame on Whites and leaves no responsibility in the process to blacks to better help themselves.

It may surprise many, but since cases such as Baker v. Carr, there has been a shift in poverty and education according to the Department of Agriculture. In fact, more persons (higher percentage) live in poverty and lack education in rural America and not urban America. The reason for this is because urban areas have better representation in state governments and therefore receive a much higher percentage of tax revenues. Diversity policies are also part of the reason for trend to disenfranchise rural America.

Progressive welfare policies of placing Native Americans on reservations and keeping African-Americans segregated to urban areas has been detrimental. Welfare provides these individuals enough money to survive but to keep them impoverished. They have become reliant on government assistance and handouts. It is enough to win crooked politicians votes. Do progressives really want blacks to succeed. I do not think so because the more successful they become the less likely they are to support Democrats.

Sure racism exists and part of the problem. However, it is small part of the problem. As long as racism is to blame then the all the other reasons for the plight of minorities will be overlooked and ignored

What's Next after the Monuments are Gone?

Once liberals topple all the monuments and erase history, what is next? One thing that is apparent with liberals nothing is ever sufficient to satisfy them? For instance, ObamaCare was not sufficient, instead it was a stepping stone to government run healthcare. The tax rate is never high enough, they always want more of Americans hard earned cash. So there has to be more once the selective monuments are destroyed. Interestingly, the monuments of Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood) and Oliver Wendell Holmes (Supreme Court Justice) remain unharmed. Of course Sanger and Holmes are liberal heroes but were two of the most racist and bigoted people in American history who disliked African-Americans so much they approved of both abortion and sterilization to weed them out. Holmes also disliked women and their movement for equal rights.

If you destroy Thomas Jefferson monuments then it also makes sense to destroy the Declaration of Independence. If you destroy Washington and Madison monuments then it also makes sense to destroy the Constitution. Once that has been accomplished any mention of them and the Confederacy can be completely redacted in history books. In fact, after toppling Lincoln monuments the Civil War can be redacted from history. We can start American history fresh with a new anarchist government run by black lives matter and liberal anarchist. Police will be abolished and chaos will rule. Any naysayers will be political enemies and locked away. In other words, the same racism and discrimination that plagued African-Americans and women will be repeated on other groups of people.

Of course, destroying monuments, paintings, and writings is a violation of the First Amendment. What happened to free speech in America?