Prompted by “Should the Supreme Court Allow Us to ‘Go to Hell’?”: http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/04/23/liberty-vs-democracy-at-the-supreme-cour
I did not watch the video there (no disrespect intended), or really dig into anything other than…
“Obamacare survived a Constitutional challenge in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius precisely because of Roberts’ willingness to yield to the will of legislatures. ‘It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,’ he wrote in his majority opinion.” [emphasis mine]
The unalienable right to liberty (critical to lawfully prevent law abuse, irrefutably logically speaking) has been thrown away like garbage, factually speaking (e.g. that Supreme Court Justice statement).
Utterly wrong by any sane judicial measure (I do not need a law degree for credibility here, because my logic forms that credibility), your job — judicial branch of our government — is to instead uphold the unalienable right to liberty (supposedly by upholding the obvious catchall amendment nine — “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) to protect the people from dominating (but still rights-infringing) choices by other people. That is why our nation is not an actual democracy (aforementioned Supreme Court Justice take note, because his quote at least nationally embarrassingly suggests the contrary), but a constitutional republic necessary to prevent an abusive democracy.
Amendment nine (which strongly, naturally, and intentionally limits government power) was horribly judicially disarmed long ago to enable much stronger government interference with all of the law abuse that inevitably obviously comes with that dominance (e.g. the kind of law abuse constituting the tyrannical quality of British rule igniting the American Revolution).
As such, law abuse is rampant (as my journal will continue to publicly expose), and treating the unalienable property of liberty as garbage (by selectively ignoring it upon stupid-but-sufficiently-strong popularity and/or power — thereby forming a “slippery slope” increasingly opposing that critical property to the point of rendering it as garbage today) is the cause of that judicially induced rampage. Such selective quality comes from pre-American conservatism spanning the political spectrum (the same quality that upheld slavery, inequality against women, etc.)
Logically speaking, the American Revolution is not yet over. Formal British rule indeed ended over two centuries ago, but British common law (and the judicially entrenched and unethical favoritism powerfully leveraged towards encouraging public support for more entrenched and unethical favoritism — in the guise of working to “protect the children” — continues to enrich dominating oligarchical members against public safety).
The unalienable right to liberty must lawfully logically form the foundation for our just rule-of-law. Without it, you can cry “regulations”, “morality, “equality” (etc.) all you want, but the notion that the government can be trusted by default remains demonstrably baseless from history through this day of authorship. That lacking trust is dangerous for all of us — including government personnel — because of the natural loss to government credibility that naturally destabilizes society.
Liberty Shield is not a rally cry towards a violent uprising. Quite the contrary, Liberty Shield is the challenging effort to defend our nation (and its truly distinguishing characteristic — logically the best civilized definition of liberty ever stated) from being (perhaps forever) lost. The bloody part of the American Revolution still exists in the form of horribly victimized citizens by way of abusive law. If that part continues to expand and match the tyrannical threshold igniting the American Revolution, then a violent uprising remains likely (perhaps weakening our nation to a degree inviting nationally destructive foreign interference).
An unwieldy rule-of-law (with legal precedence too often entrenching unethical favoritism) is not a proper behavior improvement tool (despite obscenely popular consensus to the contrary as mainly generated by ironically ultimately self-defeating oligarchical propaganda), because of the enabling of abusive behavior (and the consequently broad rippling societal damage) on behalf of “law enforcement” against a properly restored amendment nine.
“We the people” can (and must) do a whole lot better apparently by initially considering the completely logical (including completely logically grounded) points made in my Liberty Shield introduction.
The best hope humanity apparently has towards improving behavior on both sides of the law comes from the logically supremely dominating Rule of Reality (i.e. reality’s hardcore scientific and uncorruptible need for balance necessitating compensation for all abusive behavior by default). The fact (not just irrationally grounded belief) is nobody can possibly ever get away with causing suffering (regardless of the application of humanity’s punishment system) — a fact that remains largely unknown these days at the serious risk of species-wide destruction.
Let us join together as “scientific constitutionalists” to logically uphold our Liberty Shield and raise public awareness regarding these facts for public safety.