[Get Opera!]

L. Neil Smith's
Number 174, May 20, 2002

I Dare Call it Corruption! (Part II)

by James J Odle

Exclusive to TLE

"WARNING!: Politicians and their bureaucracies are hazardous to your health, wealth, freedom and sanity!" (1)

Since March 25, when Part 1 of this article appeared, I have been somewhat perplexed by the total lack of response to the overdue crucifixion I gave the Clinton mal-Administration. I thought surely some lawyer would take exception to my suggestion that Clinton is an Accomplice After the Fact to a good many crimes -- that I should leave the lawyering to lawyers. Oh well, it seems that we are all on the same page.

In Part II, we will focus more on institutional corruption and less on specific bureaucrats.

Corruption in Operating Principles

The operating principle of the U.S. Supreme Court is that they are free to interpret the Constitution any way they please, regardless of what it actually says. The operating principle of the executive branch is that they are free to do anything that the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and public opinion allow, (2) regardless of what the Constitution actually says. The operating principle of the Congress (including the Senate) is that they are free to pass any legislation that they believe the U.S. Supreme Court and public opinion will allow, regardless of what the Constitution actually says. In case you haven't noticed, various members of the legal profession are the professional 'excuse makers' for every piece of unconstitutional idiocy rammed down our throats this century.

Did you believe that a document written more than 200 years ago, exercised any 'controlling legal authority' over our power crazed government bureaucrats?

Oaths of Office and Other Acts of Deception

While, I hardily concur with L. Neil Smith's Bill of Rights Enforcement [www.lneilsmith.org/bor_enforcement.html] ideas, I believed they must be matched with Oath of Office Enforcement. (Actually the two ideas overlap.) Otherwise, what's the point of taking the oath in the first place?

Last month, George Bush willfully signed into law the political incumbent protection act known as 'campaign finance reform' legislation. He signed it even though he personally believed that it was unconstitutional, as did many congressmen and senators. It is unconstitutional to stifle our first amendment rights just because an incumbent is to spineless to say 'no' to a petitioner. Why did they do something that they believed was unlawful? Public relations. In the wake of the Enron scandal it is good public relations to show that you are 'doing something' to stem corruption in Washington. Besides, many of these gutless wonders are not satisfied with the 95% probability of reelection an incumbent possesses. They want certainty. Actually, they believe that they possess some sort of 'divine right' to rule others and that they own their offices.

Bush and every politician who voted for this idiocy should be immediately removed from public life. Do not pass go. Do not collect a pension. As I grow older, I continue to wonder if there is a politician who takes his oath seriously.

The Man Has a Plan! [Let's shoot 'im!]

Will someone, kindly tell me where in the enumerated powers the Constitution delegates to the President does it say that it is his job to plan our lives for us? National health care plans. National energy plans. National education plans. National retirement and medical insurance plans. This is the stuff the old Soviet Union was made of! Hasn't any Republican or Democrat learned anything from the collapse of socialism around the world or do they believe that here, with a little American 'know-how' they can make this brain-dead economic philosophy work? (Actually, they simply don't want to relinquish control over our lives.)

Their job, the real reason they are supposed to be elected, is to perform those duties that the Constitution delegates to them and nothing else! Responding to the changing circumstances of supply and demand is what the market is best at. Corporations hire people with these fancy MBA degrees so that they can evaluate the marketplace and prepare for future needs. This is what successful businesses do everyday.

Agencies that are 'above the law'

All through the Waco and Ruby Ridge affairs, the continual 'song and dance' that we were subjected to proclaimed that no one had a right to take up arms against his government. We were told that if we have a beef with the government that we 'should get involved in the system,' and 'access the remedies' that are available. Very well. Let us take a look at what happened when a couple of libertarians did just that.

In the nineties, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FDA. They were demanding official recognition of their right to print truthful, non misleading information that is derived from the most prestigious medical journals {such as the Journal of the American Medical Association or the New England Journal of Medicine} on the outside of their supplements. They were even willing to print an FDA disclaimer.

On January 15, 1999 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found in favor of Pearson and Shaw and ordered the agencies to bring its regulations into compliance with the First Amendment.

The agency made no effort to comply. So, Pearson and Shaw filed another lawsuit once again demanding official recognition of their First Amendment Rights and contempt of court findings against the responsible FDA officials who did not comply with the adverse ruling in the first case and thus necessitated a second law suit.

Once again, the agency invoked stalling tactics and is still, to this day, not in complete compliance with the First Amendment. They are dragging their heels, and only recognizing the First Amendment in narrowly tailored, specific cases and are thoroughly ignoring the spirit of the court's rulings. During the appeals process one FDA attorney proclaimed the agencies belief that the First Amendment did not apply to it.

What do we have to do to get a government agency to recognize our rights? How many hundred of thousands of dollars in legal fees do we have to expend? Do we have to shoot the bastards?

You can read the details of Pearson and Shaw's crusade in the following articles:

The Warning Label

If you are wondering why the subheading of this article says: "WARNING!: Politicians and their bureaucracies are hazardous to your health, wealth, freedom and sanity!", read the following articles:

This is just in case the whole thrust of Part I as well as this article or TLE for that matter are not enough.

Corruption and Political Confirmations

It is corruption for senators sitting on various committees to demand that candidates for various public offices promise to deliberately enforce 'laws' that they believe to be unconstitutional in order to win confirmation. This is what the judiciary committee did to Ashcroft. It was corruption on the part of Ashcroft to agree to it, without putting up the slightest principled fight. It is also corruption for congressman and senators to knowingly allow unconstitutional laws to remain on the books in the first place.

Corruption and Legal Jurisdiction

Here's a little gem that comes from the nationally syndicated talk show host, Republican Laura Ingraham, who is an attorney and has clerked for Justice Thomas. On one show I heard her declare that "The protections of the Constitution do not extend beyond the borders of the United States."

Well now, let's put on our thinking caps shall we? If the protections of the Constitution do not extend beyond the borders of the U.S., then exactly how does the law enforcement authority of any federal agency extend beyond the borders of the U.S.? After all, all law enforcement authority is supposed to be derived from and not be superior to the Constitution.

Back when I was being trained to be a 'sea cop' for the US Coast Guard, I was taught a few of the basic principles of legal jurisdiction -- one of which was 'jurisdiction as to location.' Before an individual can be arrested for a particular crime, the crime in question must take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency in question. For example, Arizona cops enforce the laws of Arizona in Arizona, not the laws of other states.

Manuel Noriega, Johnny "My heart is with the Taliban" Walker, and now a terrorist in Pakistan have all been accused of crimes against U.S. citizens for actions that have taken place within the territorial limits of other nations and I haven't heard a word of protest from any quarter. Why isn't the terrorist who murdered the Wall Street Journal reporter {Daniel Perl} being put on trial in Pakistan? That's where the crime took place.

Plainly, this is still another area where our government is not recognizing any Constitutional limits on its power. What's next? Are they going to go down to South America and start arresting drug dealers right and left? It's a logical extension of the principle already enshrined in law, particularly with Noriega sitting behind bars after the former Bush administration arrested him in Panama. You see, the judiciary doesn't care a wit how defendants are brought into court. Once they are there, they become grist for the judiciary's mill.

Also, the IRS claims the right to tax the earnings of U.S. citizens that occur in other nations.(3) Plainly, the U.S. government believes that its legal hegemony attaches itself like a lamprey to the hindquarters of U.S. citizens wherever they are on the planet. Just another one of those 'benefits' of 'citizenship,' I guess.

Corruption in the Courts

The state of Florida passed a law that predetermines what facts and legal arguments the tobacco companies could offer at trial in their own defense. This enabled Florida to win its lawsuit against the manufactures of the 'evil weed.' Similarly, at the trials of both the Branch Davidians and the Arizona Viper Militia, the defendants were told that the Second Amendment was not 'available' to them. Further, the Branch Davidians were found 'not guilty' of he majority of the charges that were leveled against them. However, Judge Walter Smith didn't agree. He set the verdict aside, reinstated the charges, and found the Davidians guilty on his own initiative.

Exactly, when, where and how did the legislatures and the courts acquire the power to invade the province of the jury in this way? When did the great public discussion take place wherein it was determined that lawmakers and jurists should have this power? I believe the Founding Fathers would find this practice to be usurpation and tyranny.

Why do I say this?

You can't rationally say that we have trial by jury when law makers can predetermine what facts and legal arguments a defendant may offer at trial, or when judges can demand an oath of fealty from the jury, or set aside verdicts that they don't agree with.

Since when does a member of the jury or the defendant for that matter, have an obligation to 'please the court'?

(1) Something that should be boldly printed on every voter's guide.

(2) Actually, this isn't quite correct. Clinton continued to enforce the Brady Bill after the Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional.

(3) I understand that the U.S. government is the only nation on Earth that does this.

James J. Odle is a splendid fellow who, unlike the vast majority of so-called 'public servants' has a real job in the private sector performing real work, which a real employer voluntarily pays him to perform.

He is also a Life Member of Gun Owners of America.


Banner 10000004 banner

Brigade Quartermasters, Ltd.

Help Support TLE -- buy stuff from our advertisers!

Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 174, May 20, 2002.