When I was a young man the Vietnam war was on. There were hundreds of thousands who wondered what the term "involuntary servitude" meant. It was right in my constitution. I didn't want to go. So, doesn't this require a constitutional ammendment? Apparantly, the supreme court has the right to interpret the dictionary as well as constitutional intent? By whose authority? I think this all began with his highness Honest Abe Lincoln who caused thousands of deaths in rioting in protest over his blatantly unconstitutional move. But he got away with it. The high court revises the dictionary routinely.
The meaning of this term is supposed to be that you can't make a crime out of something someone is doing which is not presently illegal and proceed to arrest them for it. First, you must change the law. Then you make everyone aware that it is now illegal then you arrest them if they continue to do it.
Well, there's a way around this. The dodge is Culpability through Non-Omniscience.
Let's say you make ladders. And someone falls off one of your ladders. You are liable for damages because you failed to __________ (fill in blank). Example: The foot of the ladder sank in the mud and it tipped over and the guy fell off and broke his thumb. Pay the plaintiff $1,000,000 because you failed to put a warning about mud on your ladder. It wasn't illegal to sell a ladder without the warning but now that someone has fallen ... it is ... and you are retroactively culpable.
The entire tort system of the United States is based on ex post facto law.
Have you ever noticed how high the judge sits in some court rooms? I was in a federal court once where the judge was so high up she had to lean over the edge to see me !!! (about twelve feet up ... no kidding). I guess she was some kind of a god, else why so high? Anyway, if a judge anywhere on this earth sits more than a head taller than anyone else in the courtroom, you can bet they're not human. And you'd better bow low or be smote down by their wrath. I've never seen where the Supreme Court sits but five'll getcha ten there's clouds n' stuff around their heads. Obviously, this is what old Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin wanted. Ain't it so?
On of the best ways to destroy the original intent of the constitution is to make people feel impotent when confronted by the irrational. This is the intent behind the imfamous Miranda decision. Here we have a simple problem of police beating on a suspect. They really shouldn't do that so how can we use it as a mechanism for destroying the constitution? Let the suspect go to wreak more havoc on civilized beings. X kills Y, Z beats on X, therefore X cannot be held liable for killing Y. Excellent reasoning!
Obviously, the correct solution to this problem would be to hold the offending officer guilty of a separate crime or offense. Like this "You beat up X, therefore you go to jail for 2 months and you're thrown off the force." or "You didn't read X his rights so you're suspended without pay for 1 week." In neither case does X walk out the door. But doing so would not assist in the destruction of the constitution which is the conscious intent the court. You say you don't believe that they are doing this intentionally. They are counting on your not believing it.
The intention here is that a defendant shouldn't be put on trial over and over again for the same crime to facilitate the states' objective of conviction. The dodge around this is almost comical in its imbicility but here it is: Just call the offense by another name then put the guy on trial for the now 'different' crime. Since he's not being charged with the same crime it's not double jeopardy. Example: A police officer is charged with beating up a suspect. The jury finds him innocent. So retry him for civil rights violations, i.e. he violated his civil rights by beating him up. Still innocent? Rename the crime and retry until you get the politically correct verdict. Easy. Who's going to see through this? And if you can get away with this you can try anything, right? Sure ...!
This is as old as time. When your program fails to do what was proposed you say, "Whew... Sure is a good thing that our program is in place ... else things would be even worse ... see? ... look at these statistics ... ". (And bend over).
This is used to destroy almost everything and anything ... housing (HUD), railroads (whatever happened to them anyway), education ... . There's an endless list. Add your own.
The prime example is the drug problem. Here, government and organized crime enter into a symbiotic relationship. Each feeds off the other. Federal agents arrest traffickers and confiscate the illegal drugs. This makes the buisness dangerous, lucrative and glamorous since the traffickers are only supplying a product desired by the free market. In fact, the price is inflated to some one thousand times its true market value (if such traffic were unopposed). This high price supports the incredible numbers of gangs, small and large, that prey on the entire culture. Without the law opposing it, drug use it would increase slightly, as evidenced by the end of prohibition. But all those gangs would disappear when the money, danger and glamour dried up.
Whenever people do things intentionally, they make mistakes. Even politicians who are consciously attempting to destroy civilization sometimes do the right thing for us by accident. Such was the space program. The government never got so much for its money. But then they realized that if people look up they can't see a politician. People must be made to look down ... where politicians are ... in the mud. This had to be stopped. And it is. A few more decades and the last rocket will go up to be replaced by programs that benefit the poor. After all, we can't send money up when so many are down, can we? The space program was the entire earth's advertising budget for education. It showed what man can do if he has a brain. Politicians don't want brains. It's too foreign to them.
This is a defacto foriegn army operating in the United States to the detriment of its civilization. The problem should rightly be handled by the U.S. army. It isn't. The prosecution of organized crime depends on individual citizens who have the courage to stand up to the mob, i.e. who are willing to subject themselves and their families to death threats coming from hundreds of thugs armed with machine guns. Sure ... (Gimme a break).
There's a simple way to get rid of such crime. Just make an amendment to the constitution allowing the president to arrest and sentence arbitrarily 1,000 people. [Subject to the continuous approval of a majority in the senate] Since the FBI knows who all the mob people are, they just go and round up the top guys and throw 'em in the can. Whoever takes their place is the next guy to go to the can. No organization can stand up to this. All mobs would simply dissociate into small disorganized, easily handled groups of the cheap hoods that they actually are. This is not a major problem. It's just pumped up into something much more than it ever could be on its own.
You will never see such action taken or even proposed because, as ever, the goal of politics is the destruction of civilization. Whatever is good for civilization is opposed by politicians. Whatever is bad for it is lauded. Maybe you're beginning to get my general drift here?
This is one sweet deal. The only proper law is one of prohibition (you can't do this). A law of compulsion states that you must do this. A law of prohibition carries with it a specified penalty. A law of compulsion has an open ended penalty, i.e. if you don't comply you receive, in theory, a life sentence or until you do comply.
All laws or compulsion are moral abominations. They are almost always couched in terms that suggest they are laws of prohibition. You can sort them out by pouring them through this little logical sieve.
Law #1: You can't hit somebody over the head and take their money, physically endanger them or mess up the place willfully.
Law #2: You go to work every day, pay your bills, don't bother anybody, mind your own buisness ... therefore, go directly to jail.
If the law is after you, your 'crime' falls into one of these two categories. If it's the second, you're being brought down by a law of compulsion but you have the moral high ground. What you do about it is up to you. Maybe you'll comply and thereby strengthen the governments' hold on you or maybe you will fight it and get run over as by a truck. Take your choice.
Politicians like laws of compulsion because it makes criminals of everyone just by living and breathing. They're Grrrrrrrrrrrrreat !!!
I have said repeatedly that politicians are consciously attempting to destroy civilization. What will they gain by this? Wouldn't they be destroyed also?
They're planning on being the ones left. There's always somebody left no matter how bad it gets. And ... there's always somebody left to 'feed' off of.
They want power. Power (in the political sense) is "the ability to destroy the lives of others with impunity". The more lives you can destroy with the greater impunity, the greater your power. They then believe themselves to be great men, to be remembered along with the likes of Galileo or Newton or anyone famous for actually accomplishing something in spite of all their interference. Worthless scumbags such as Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Xerxes, etc. etc. etc. get the same play from historians and newsmen (well actually more). Plus ... Newsflash ... they get more girls !!!!
Today is the era of the insurance/lawyer/politician scam. It is the most lucrative of all illicit actions ever taken by government (with the exception of outright confiscation).
It runs as follows:
The logic of the scam is to create ever larger premiums for the suckers (you) to pay. When premiums are high there is more money to loot for the same number of conmen, i.e. if you sell an insurance policy for $10 and rake $1 ... better to sell the same policy for $100 and rake $10 ... get it? They make their money on volume as well as turnover.
And never forget that the insurance industry NEVER does anything to advance civilization. They just "transfer" money around in a circle and rake off a cut on every go' round. Insurance is what I call the "vector equivalent of a Ponzi scheme" meaning that ... in a pyramid scheme (Ponzi-scalar) nothing is produced but the people at the top of the pyramid get rich at the expense of the suckers beneath while in the insurance scam (vector - go' round) peddlers of insurance and their cohorts (politicos, lawyers) get rich as money passes hands.
The biggest example is car insurance. Why do we have to buy it? It's mandated by law. Why?
Why not just buy insurance for yourself, your car, your passengers? Why sue the other guy? Does he have a million bucks? Whom are you actually suing? Ans: the insurance company (which is actually glad to pay just as a drug dealer is glad when another dealer is arrested ... that's what keeps the price ^up^ ... although he doesn't want it to be him personally).
The lawsuit creates the atmosphere that something is being accomplished when actually we have only money changing hands which could have been done by simpler means.
What about people who don't have insurance? Tough ... they go appeal to the public trough just as they always have in the past and always will.
The insurance scam is now spreading to every endeavor. Medicine is particularly hard hit. The rates for med service are ludicrous in the extreme.
Government mandated and supported insurance scams are several times larger than the drug trade and continue to expand. Last Q: What would happen if all the pencil pushers running this type scam were actually working at some constructive task ... like roofing hurricane damaged homes?
It's just for general scams, not individual cases which would tend to make the list infinite.