All persons born…

See many men among these voters?

Individuals who Voted to Enforce their Rights–and WON! Irish women won individual rights (link)

Does the Constitution allow men with guns to threaten physicians or coerce pregnant women? The Harrison Act enabled pseudoscience-addled politicians to have men with service pistols step between doctors and patients in 1914. See why missing an opportunity to vote Libertarian is tantamount to desertion under fire as mystical and collectivist reality control delegitimize individual claims to freedom of action.

Today’s guest repost is by Austin’s Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland, constitutionalism.blogspot.com.

U.S. Supreme Court: Issues with current contenders

Unenumerated rights

The first issue is presented by the statement by nominee appointee Brett  Cavanaugh in his acceptance speech, that he would not find rights not explicitly recognized in the main Constitution.. This has been an issue since the nomination of Robert Bork, who considered the Ninth Amendment, which calls for the nondisparagement of rights that are not “enumerated” (made explicit) somewhere in the Constitution, as amended, to be an “ink blot”. There is strong opposition to Supreme Court judges doing that, especially from so-called “conservatives”, who don’t understand that constitutional rights are all “immunities”, restrictions on the powers of government. They are not “privileges” to receive a sufficient amount of public resources, such as for education, healthcare, elder support, or any other objects of public subsidies.

Interestingly, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Fifth Circuit decided that a “right to an abortion” was a Ninth Amendment right of a woman  “to choose whether to have children”, which by the 14th Amendment, was “incorporated” for the states. This presented the Supreme Court with an apparent problem,  because there was opposition to funding unenumerated rights in the Senate. The Fifth Circuit found a Ninth Amendment “right  to choose whether to have children”. So the SC tried to sustain the Fifth Circuit without embracing the Ninth Amendment. The result was an incoherent opinion. There was no way to avoid the Ninth Amendment.

It would perhaps too much to expect a nominee to venture into an extended discussion of what a “right” is, and what it is not. It is awkward to say “I will not find a ‘right’ to a sufficient amount of a public resource.” That is too complicated for most senators. So the candidate denies he will try to find any “unenumerated” rights. That is somewhat disingenuous, but the issue needs to be discussed.

1968, NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

Republicans, Dixiecrats, No Libertarian Party!

When “life” begins

One of the potential nominees, Amy Barrett, has been reported to have stated that human “life” begins at conception. That is a misstatement of the issue in Roe v. Wade. which in its essence was not about “life” nut about “personhood” because “Rights (immunities)” attach to “persons”, (roles in court), not to “life”, despite what the Declaration of Independence says. (That is why some activists have sought to move the commencement of “personhood” back to conception. That would be a mistake. We cannot allow each state to redefine “personhood”, because if we did, a state could define some people to be nonpersons, without rights. So there has to be a uniform definition across all states if the protections of the Constitution are not to be meaningless. That is the basis for finding the right to be incorporated under the Ninth Amendment, as the Fifth Circuit did.

So when does “life” begin?

Not at conception. Each individual is the latest in an unbroken chain of life that goes back to at least the point when the first single-celled organism became a multi-celled animal, which occurred about 650 million years ago, during the pre-Cambrian era, when the surface of the Earth was covered with ice (“snowball Earth”) and there was only one continent, Rodinia. We are all descended from that multi-celled organism. That is when “life” began.

So when does “personhood” begin?

This was declared by the jurist Edward Coke in the 15th century, and later restated by legal scholar William Blackstone, in the early 18th century, who provided most of the definitions for terms used in the U.S. Constitution. They held that “personhood” begins at natural birth, or induced natural birth (they had Cesarean sections in those days). Some of the states later found that personhood began with baptism, entry of a name in church records, or even later. Not at “conception”, the date of which could not have been defined with any precision in those days, or even now.

Consider what would happen if we defined “personhood” to begin at conception? It would make every fetus the ward of a court, with the court having power to supervise the pregnancy. It could order the woman to continue a pregnancy, and not terminate it, under penalty of law. That would be forced pregnancy. Do we want that? Every pregnant woman chained to a bed. Anyone see the play “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Good way to stop everyone from having sex.

Forcing women into involuntary servitude and labor

Sinfest.net webcomic 2 awe

Need for uniformity

Incorporation of a Ninth Amendment right is required by the need to have a uniform definition of “personhood” (legal role) across all jurisdiction, since constitutional rights attach to “persons” and not just to “citizens” or “life”.  If states could define personhood, they could deprive anyone of rights by defining him to be a “nonperson”. Thus a state could find that Blacks are not persons as a way to deprive them of their liberty.

Notes:

1. Roe v. Wade, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (“On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.”).

2. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3, A Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.

4. Robert Bork and the Inkblot, Kurt Lash.

5. Constitutional views on abortion

See also: Ayn Rand (link)

Get the complete story on other prohibitions in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either if two languages for the price of a craft pint. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy in 1929 and 2008.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

 

For every action force…

...curse, when first we practice to coerce!

…there is an equal but opposite reaction force. –Isaac Newton

Since the Republican Party’s Comstock Laws of 1873 crashed the economy while making a chain-gang offense of so much as talking about birth control, mystical Republicans have marveled at the uppity reactions of the women so coerced. Women, you see, had no enforcement of their right to vote in 1873.

Womens’ right to vote was finally enforced by the 19th Amendment, and by 1932 women–especially the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Repeal–exercised that suffrage to throw Hooverville-generating prohibitionism out of the saddle and into the ditch for five elections in a row. One hundred years after the Comstock Laws banned ALL birth control (including condoms, diaphragms and pamphlets describing the rhythm method), the 1972 Libertarian Party plank:

“We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”

suddenly became the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision ordering men with guns to start backing away from pregnant women and their doctors:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

Republican and Prohibition Party attempts to rewrite the Constitution, bring back Comstock laws, infiltrate the LP.org and force women into involuntary labor have garnered nearly enough votes to threaten the Libertarian Party plank that is Roe v Wade. These coercive pressures engendered an almost Newtonian reaction to the attempted initiation of force. Fully half of U.S. voters in 2016 supported planks to tax, prohibit and hobble energy generation. This is coercion every bit as ignorant, superstitious and drastic as Republican attempts to create new legislation to single out and bully women–calling them selfish. Surprised?

So shall ye reap!

As ye sow…

German voters in 1933 supported planks to tax, deport, disarm, disenfranchise and bully everyone they imagined might be selfish by birth. They too were surprised when bombs rained down–some 15 of which bombs are even NOW being found every day in German soil. Their Christian altruist politicians, officers and leaders were just as surprised when dropping trapdoors tightened nooses about their throats at Nuremberg–in accordance with international law and Newton’s law involving mass and acceleration.

If you need surprising news translated, get in touch.
See my foreign language blog.

The Bill Weld Gambit

No to Involuntary Labor!

Ensuring clinic access is guarding a fundamental right of the individual.

Would Bill Weld betray or help the Libertarian Party by running as a Republican?

The whole reason I volunteer, vote and donate to Libertarian parties is because I want the laws to change. This is about ideas, ethics, freedom… It is not about this or that particular politician. If my every libertarian spoiler vote is worth 10,000 looter votes when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, or 21 votes when it comes to repealing taxes and regulations, or a half-dozen votes in favor of relegalizing plant leaves, that leverage is fine by me. Nixon’s tinkering with the tax codes to subsidize looter parties and penalize honesty was met with whoops of joy from the presstitute corps. The move had attracted parasitical infiltrators to our ranks and literally pays all news outlets to enthusiastically depict the LP in much the way Der Sturmer reported on Judaism. It is no exaggeration to reiterate that the looter parties will do whatever it takes to rig the elections, infiltrate and defame the LP and generally play dirty pool to keep us from getting our candidates elected. After all, they are the ones that are for the initiation of force, fraud and violence.

But our candidates only need a few votes to win–where to win means to change bad laws. Because the Kleptocracy factions are nearly identical, their vote counts differ by very little. With a short platform purged of suicidal planks planted on us by infiltrators and saboteurs, all we need is about 3% of the vote to consistently cover the gap in roughly a third of the elections in These States. Bill Weld helped the LP earn national spoiler vote status by earning more votes than the difference between the Dem and GOP popular vote counts. When Gary Johnson opposed individual rights for women 4 years earlier he got only a third as many votes. The increase in our vote fraction attending the return to our original pro-choice platform should enable the LP to replace one of the looter parties in something like half a century. This is about the current age of the LP. Our looter adversaries are 170 and well into senility.

In order to not lose elections, paychecks and pelf, Republican partisans have to delete prohibition planks and find less repugnant candidates. Bill Weld is a less repugnant candidate. Unlike Randal Paul and Whatzisname Amash, Weld does not advocate sending men with guns to threaten doctors and  force women into involuntary labor. Weld is as pro-choice as the original Libertarian Party platform of 1972! If Weld runs for the nomination, he will end the Republican strategy of finding women-bulliers to impersonate token libertarians in an effort to bring back the Comstock laws banning ALL birth control.

This is exactly what we “unreconstructed” Libertarians want. Let’s us infiltrate them for some changes!

Simultaneous interpreting for Brazilian and American audiences.

Libertarian Party Jurisprudence

Voters who have never read a party platform are told that to cast a vote on principle is to “waste your vote.” The verifiable fact is: your spoiler votes for Libertarian Party candidates repeal bad laws. Today’s example is a woman’s right to undo her unwanted pregnancy. How was that right asserted and made law? 

The LP legalized abortion

Read the original

The Libertarian Party Platform of June 17, 1972 said:

“We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”

LP Candidates were John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. Ours was the first viable party to field a lady candidate for vice-president and secure for her an electoral vote–12 years before the Dems finally followed our lead. The popular election was 7 November of 1972, and electoral votes were counted in December.

On January 22, 1973, 45 days after the electoral votes were counted the Supreme Court decided in ROE v. WADE:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

That most important part of the Supreme Court decision was a perfect logical paraphrasis of the Libertarian plank on abortion. Much effort was expended to distance the decision from the first three words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born…” These three words speak to the rights of individuals, but were NOT the reason the court struck down coathanger abortion laws in states notorious for mystical bigotry. The Supreme court was manned by five Republicans and three Democrats, and had been mulling this case since the first baby steps toward organizing a Libertarian Party.

Already the LP.org was against military conscription–which coerced 58,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, formerly a French opium regie. But the Supreme Court had already committed to that version of slavery and involuntary servitude for WWI. Republicans–white and Christian like the Germans who voted for National Socialism–were terrified. Republicans feared not communism, essentially the same thing as nationalsocialism, but the “activated atheism” they associated with the Communist faith. Republicans had reason to fear that the widows and girlfriends of the boys they’d sacrificed were ready for bloody vengeance at the polls. Democrats had ditched the Klan and voted Wet in the 1932 economic collapse, and made out very well. So Democratic Justices again betrayed Southern mystical bigotry by copying the Libertarian plank, as Dems had copied the Liberal party repeal plank to defeat Herbert Hoover and elect FDR.

Nixon had tried to crush the LP within 24 hours of its formation by using the IRS to bribe the media with tax money. That politician took office, gingerly stepping over the scorched relics of the usual looter opposition–Socialist, Socialist Labor, People’s, Prohibition and Communist party–but fearing the 3674 Libertarian votes. Those votes have since grown a thousand times and now total 4 million.

21x the Clout!

Winning is changing the laws. See original

Since 1971 the Libertarian Party has been the prime mover for deregulation, repeal of censorship, defense of individual rights, non-entanglement in foreign affairs and the general increase in freedom. We are the reason God’s Own Prohibitionists finally backed away from coercing gay voters before the recent election–and the appeal to laissez-faire has also spread to more than 20 countries. The only brutal dictatorships left on earth are governments that block libertarians from organizing into political parties. Think about that next time someone is tortured or beheaded.

If you understand that maybe libertarianism isn’t all that weird, you might want to help out with a small donation at www.LP.org
If you were pleased with the clarity of this expository writing, consider www.portugueseinterpreter.com to help you get ideas across the language barrier in three directions.

 

“Show me a movement that doesn’t hate somebody and I will join it at once.” Robert Anton Wilson