Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Federalist Papers discussed blogs, much to Justice Scalia's annoyance

Justice Scalia grows annoyed with blogs. The public discusses his comments.

Justice Scalia doesn't like to have his comments posted on the internet.

The Justice doesn't like blogs. Doesn't like people discussing issues of public figures. It is curious that a "leader" in the third branch concerned with the "minor trifle" of a blog about his comments; and that the "leader" remains annoyed with blogs and the internet. If there were no merit to the public concern, it is curious that the Justice would spend valuable time commenting on the public comments; that time could be spend reviewing the law.

Justice Scalia perhaps you might enlighten us:

Perhaps you are you concerned with the public's discussion of your public statements?

Justice Scalia, the check on your power is to come from the Legislature and Executive. You were also afforded the right to a life-long position.

In theory, this was done so that you would not be worried with the intrusions from the other two. But as of late, it is clear the Executive has been engaged in Judicial Despotism, Where is the Chief Justice?

In Scalia's universe, the blogs are an annoyance. The blogs discuss times when Scalia's marshall silence reporters. How quaint.

Yet, what is most surprising is that the Justice does not rely on law or the constitution for guidance, but asks bloggers. Apparently he reads them. And he grows wear that his remarks are on the internet.

Indeed, what authority do blogs have to discuss the Chief Justice and send out word of warn over the allegedly improper conduct? Federalist 84 has direct references to blogs.

Let's look at Federalist 84.
What are the sources of information by which the people in Montgomery County must regulate their judgment of the conduct of their representatives in the State legislature? . . . It ought also to be remembered that the citizens who inhabit the country at and near the seat of government will, in all questions that affect the general liberty and prosperity, have the same interest with those who are at a distance, and that they will stand ready to sound the alarm when necessary, and to point out the actors in any pernicious project END QUOTE.
In theory, the Constitution was devised to ensure the weak judicial branch did not get intruded upon by the stronger legislature and Executive.

But we see nothing before us to suggest that the Constitution constrains public discourse of alleged misconduct by the Justice.

What is to be said of those who deny the Judicial Branch of Government a role in reviewing the Patriot Act? Federalist 80 has something to say on that, Justice Scalia.
QUOTE: The most bigoted idolizers of State authority have not thus far shown a disposition to deny the national judiciary the cognizances of maritime causes.ENDQUOTE
Those who deny the Judiciary a role in reviewing the Patriot Act are, in Hamilton's words "bigoted idolizers of State authority."

Why stop there? Indeed, agents are under the intent of the people; it is not the role of the people to submit to arbitrary seizures and arrests:
QUOTE: If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.ENDQUOTE
It's not our job to bend to this abuse of authority. Rather, it is the job of the Judiciary to force the Executive to bend to the constitution.

What does the Federalist Paper say about the encroachments by these agents? We only need to turn to Federalist 83 to review this
QUOTE: more numerous encroachments have been made upon the trial by jury in this State since the
Revolution, though provided for by a positive article of our constitution, than has happened in the same time either in Connecticut or Great Britain. It may be added that these encroachments have generally originated with the men who endeavor to persuade the people they are the warmest defenders of popular liberty, but who have rarely suffered constitutional obstacles to arrest them in a favorite career.ENDQUOTE
Those who speak about "doing the bidding for freedom" are actually those using a diversion of war to take away that freedom. This Executive knows the diversion of Federalist 83 and deserves to be blogged about; just as those in the Judiciary who fail to stand up to the unlawful Patriot Act.

Arbitrary and secret arrests, and gathering evidence without warrants is contrary to the Constitution.

When these activities occur, we have a problem with authoritarian power.
QUOTE: The habit of being continually marshalled on
opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.ENDQUOTE
Blackstone also spoke of the danger of secrecy:
QUOTE: The observations of the judicious Blackstone,[1] in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." ENDQUOTE
The remedy? Habeas Corpus and other limitations on the legislature from passing laws.
QUOTE: And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution."[2] ENDQUOTE
Yet, this Executive has conferred onto himself the divine right to wage war without just cause; and then Convince the Congress to pass laws that have no foundation either in law or fact.

That deserves public discourse and alarm. To which, the Federalist Papers spoke eloquently:
QUOTE: they will stand ready to sound the alarm when necessary, and to point out the actors in any pernicious project.ENDQUOTE
The Patriot Act II, as envisioned by the Department of Justice is contrary to the Constitution. It removes a required check.
QUOTE:There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ENDQUOTE
This is another way of saying inter alia:

  • Unlawful acts and unlawful delegation of unlawful authority are not enforceable;

  • The government is not above the people; and

  • Nor can the government grant its agents powers the government is
    prohibited from doing.

    Ho Hum.
    QUOTE: It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.ENDQUOTE
    Yet, the Federalist Papers discuss this. They say that anything that is required, cannot be satisfied by doing the opposite.

    The Patriot Act removes what is required. That is not lawful.

    The Federalist Papers also discuss this situation. That unlawful acts are not enforceable. That the Constitution remains above the acts; and the agents remain accountable to the People, not the other way around.

    What is to be done when the Executive threatens Congress and the people using false information?
    QUOTE: Wilful abuses of a public authority, to the oppression of the subject, and every species of official extortion, are offenses against the government, for which the persons who commit them may be indicted and punished according to the circumstances of the case. ENDQUOTE
    As to the question of blogs and the judiciary, is the Judiciary to be insulated from blogs? No, for there is no constitutional authority for the Supreme Court to create this insulation. Rather, the Federalist Papers only discuss insulation from the other two branches:
    QUOTE: If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.ENDQUOTE
    Back to the issue of the Patriot Act and the proposed changes to the Fourth Amendment: Why is the Judiciary Silent about the Constitution, but remains outspoken about blogs who report on the Judiciary's speeches and allegations of misconduct with the Court?
    QUOTE: But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed.
    They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.ENDQUOTE
    This court remains silent as the Executive encroaches upon both the Legislature, Judicial Branches, and the rights of the people.

    But what is to be done when this Tyrant not only encroaches on legislative and judicial authority but invades other countries in a war of aggression?
    QUOTE: The Union will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members . . . And the responsibility for an injury ought ever to be accompanied with the faculty of preventing it.ENDQUOTE
    I see nothing here that prevents the United States from falling under the jurisdiction of lawful courts. Especially in cases where domestic law is not enforced; and international law is ignored.

    Indeed, the US through 5100.77 clearly identified the objective of preventing war crimes. When that fails, the injuries to other nation's citizens must be remedied.

    What is Scalia's answer to violations of the law? He asks the branch tyranny not be checked, as if there is a "no interference" clause. That's not leadership, nor is it a check on power.

    It is an abdication responsibility, arguably malfeasance, Justice Scalia.

    It is time to turn that vast body of knowledge and wisdom on the Legislature and the Executive. Bloggers remain vigilant reminders where the searchlight should point.

    Justice Scalia, it is time to reposition your focus. You've missed the Executive's encroachment into both the Judicial and Legislative Branches.

    Your Constitution remains in full force, as bloggers have to remind you.

    Why is an external review required when one's own government strays? Because the Justice's loyalty is not to the laws of war, but to government; the Justice's loyalty lies primarily not with the Geneva Convention, but to the Tyrant.
    QUOTE: And even where this had not been done, it would be natural that the judges, as men, should feel a strong predilection to the claims of
    their own government.ENDQUOTE
    Is the International Crimial Court needed? Of course, self-evidently, as evidenced by the gross abuse of power, unresponsive American government, and the carte Blanche offered by the justices upon the other two branches of Tyranny.

    Then there is the absurdity that the US courts are closed to foreign nationals. Yet, Federalist 82 discusses this:
    QUOTE: The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe. Those of Japan, not less than of New York, may furnish the objects of legal discussion to our courts. ENDQUOTE
    The Federalist Papers discussed foreign nations, foreign nationals. So we can only wonder what baboons populate the offices of Chief Justice's or poodle boy Gonzalez; and what "clerks of ignorance" could possibly arrive at such an absurd finding that the US courts have no role in Guantanamo.

    Indeed, the Federalist Papers also discuss foreigners
    QUOTE: In such cases, where foreigners were concerned on either side, it would be impossible for the federal justices to do justice without an equitable as well as a legal jurisdiction.UNQUOTE
    It is not simply a "right" to access the courts; but it is the sense of good order that disputes are resolved in court as opposed to on the fields of unfriendly fire.

    What is to be done when the US courts remain closed to those who wish to bring lawful claims of injustice; or its agents violate the laws of war without consequence; or its leaders wage wars of aggression without sanction?

    Please, Justice Scalia, perhaps you might enlighten us.

    Or are the clerks of the court and judicial staffers who work for idiot-boy Gonzalez so ignorant of the statutes that they would both fail to apply the Federalist Papers, and have the audacity to actually permit torture; then have the gall to mislead the court and suggest that the torture problem doesn't exist?

    We have no understanding what fissures are in their minds, as some of them are more concerned with private honeymoons than actually putting the Constitution first. But why be surprised. What was that salary downgrade, Elizabeth Marcelle Apisson now turned Carmen?

    Indeed, the fools in DoD would have us believe this is "just isolated." yet, why the ever fear over having more photos released? Because those photos, if shown, would be material in the popular decision to both support this war of aggression; and this tyrants decision to make false claims to Congress over the "need" to wage a war of aggression.

    Please, Justice Scalia enlighten us. Give us wisdom. Tell something that would "make all the concern" go away. I'm sure you can find a clerk willing to rewrite the rules, undermine the laws of war, and willing to ignore the oath of office to the Constitution.

    Why stop there? Surely, the weather is not all the much of an inconvenience to suggest the Constitution is not to be enforced?

    There is a great danger in granting new powers.
    QUOTE:danger of encumbering the government with any constitutional provisions the propriety of which is not indisputable.UNQUOTE
    Has there not been a grant of authority to DoJ to invade homes, secretly gather evidence, avoid the 4th Amendment, and do so outside the courts review?

    What is to be said of the lawyers who "justify" this unlawful encroachment on the Judicial Branch; how bad will the situation deteriorate; will Justice Scalia or anyone bother to whisper a slight word of caution about this Executive?

    We hear no whisper directed at either the Executive or the Legislature. Rather, Justice Scalia is complaining about blogs and those people who post his comments on the internet.

    The only thing we hear is more reason to concentrate more made up powers. Yet this was also discussed:
    QUOTE: Arbitrary impeachment, arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings. ENDQUOTE
    Not only is the Executive concentrating power, but the Judicial Branch is going along for the ride.

    Wow! Can you be more transparent with you failure to check the other two branches; why is it so easy to direct attention to those who point out what is self-evident?

    Justice Scalia and the dogs in DoJ: We surrender nothing! Look:
    QUOTE: Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.ENDQUOTE
    You need to come up with some better reasons for passing the Patriot Act II. Something far more convincing than, "We have 1,000 ghosts running around that might violate the law."

    DoJ! You have already violated the laws; your DoJ OPR is worthless; and your agents are imbeciles. In fact, they are incompetent. DoJ needs to put a better leash on its own agents; then perhaps we will revisit the Fourth Amendment.

    Put your own house in order before you further insult yourself with inane comments about the public discussing your alleged incompetence and arguably arrogant attitude toward those you are supposed to "serve."

    Justice Scalia, you could have kept your mouth shut. Could have simply chosen to "rise above the discourse." But you have now opened the door to more public commentary.

    And we pay you how much to "apply your vast knowledge of law"? Focus on the law, and we'll focus on monitoring you with blogs.
    QUOTE: And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge.ENDQUOTE
    Justice Scalia, is this a race to the bottom: To see which blogger you can rely on as the excuse to "not be outraged" at your own foolishness?

    Please enlighten the blogosphere are you saying:

  • The blogs that you read are somehow "more knowledgeable" in the matters of law that you are looking at; or

  • Despite your legal training, you can only rely on the bloggers for sound advice and feedback; or conversely:

  • That despite public actions that tend to intimidate the free exchange of ideas, that somehow that some leader's conduct and speech is above public commentary?"

    Because it was the historical encroachments upon power that would tend to excite the magistrates.
    QUOTE: Arbitrary impeachments, arbitrary methods
    of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question. And both of these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan of the convention. ENDQUOTE
    Where is the outrage from the court; and why is the court silent as DoJ and the Congress seriously consider encroaching upon the Judicial power?

    Forget the damage that has already been done to those who have been detained, tortured, and are dead. Is there no respect within the Court for the power the Court has been lawfully granted under the limited constitution?

    Until the Constitution is changed, where is the Judicial Branch in asserting the Judicial power?

    Self-evidently, the Court defers to a tyrant.

    This self-delegated tyranny is contrary to the Constitution.
    QUOTE:There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

    To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people
    are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ENDQUOTE
    Curious that it takes the "mighty power of the blog" and the "actual posting of Scalia's comments" to awaken the "defender of the public" to encroachments to the Judicial Branch's loss of power exhibiting blind deference to the Executive. The Justices remain blinded and deserve close watching and comment.

    Perhaps it might be fitting if the scales were righted, that is weather permitting.

    Stickers here: