It’s pretty clear that the Judicial System is currently the most corrupt government institution in the US. Judges and lawyers have become ideologically aligned with the left and are openly defiant of the Constitution and any laws that get in the way of their political ideology and activism. This isn’t limited to blue states, as every state including Texas is filled with leftist activists who are lawyers, DAs, and judges, etc. The corruption is dire and every facet of the Judicial system has been ideologically captured by the left. They are creating laws out of thin air through rulings in favor of leftist activism and the right just accepts it. I know this isn’t a new phenomenon, but the blatant disregard and arrogance the Judicial Branch displays is worse than ever. The state of Judicial Power makes it seem that the Founding Fathers failed to understand how the Justice System could be so systemically molded into a tool for enforcing authoritarianism. I do wonder if the Founding Fathers intended for the citizenry to be the real check and balance against the Judicial System through either non-compliance or direct resistance to tyranny of the courts?
Comments (35)
sorted by:
The Founding Fathers literally added an asterisk to everything that said "if this doesn't work out you have a responsibility to kill people in the name of fixing it".
The taste for that has been trained right out of people and none of what the system does today was ever intended by the founders. There is really not a single behavior or function of the government that is as it was 300 years ago except "shoot at protesters if the protest is bad enough" which they built into it despite their literally endless insistence that people will have a responsibility have to overthrow the government if it goes bad.
They lived in a period of violent revolution and wrote under pen names to avoid being arrested or killed. Today, they would be arrested or killed. They expected violence to the point that they baked it into their system of peace as a check and balance. It has all fallen apart, even the violence.
Genuine question - Where exactly is that asterisk? Which document and where if you don’t mind? I can make assumptions thats what they were meaning in certain areas, but I am curious exactly which part you are referencing.
That is just the meme of it. If you actually dig into the writings of the time you see that it is a pervasive concept and not something that boils down to a few bite-size quotes to BTFO source-fags and historical revisionists. In that one regard, it's not too dissimilar to studying the bible. If you are not either and you are genuinely interested, I would say just go ahead and read Common Sense, and then Federalist Papers (common sense first though).
I should add that Alexander Hamilton famously succeeded in arguing for a federal standing army in a later Federalist Paper, and up until that point, and for about a hundred years following that point (until around the time of an upheaval wherein hundreds of thousands of White men were killed on American soil in pursuit of eliminating the right of human beings to leave globohomo) it was considered to be a retarded and evil idea. The life of Hamilton is the single greatest argument that the jews aren't directly responsible for globohomo lol. So saying "founding fathers" in a lump sum way is kind of an ignorant thing we do today.
Appreciate it. I am genuinely interested because realistically when I was growing up and in the school system, any time a class goes over the Declaration/Constitution it’s very surface level and the only thing they really harp on are dates and people’s names. Rarely would any teacher go into depth of the meaning behind the words and how they apply today. Or maybe they did and I didn’t give a crap as a 5th grader. But as I’ve aged and see the globohomo encroaching from every angle it makes me want to become more familiar with general US and world history. However a problem I’ve run into is I have to start really scrutinizing source material because I’ve come to truly realize just how much the phrase “winners write the history” actually means. Is what I’m reading accurate to factual events that occurred? Or has it been propagandized for so long it starts to overlap the truth and overtake it completely - sort of like the recent Yasuke bullshit or how I’m sure Covid, Jan 6th, etc… will all be portrayed in 100 yrs.
I would reckon you have a high linguistic IQ. I would dive into Common Sense. It's not written in today's style of English but it is still modern English. If it bores you (personally I'm not into non-fiction and I have to force it) there are lots of study books on it, but if you choose to learn about it secondhand then you have to pay attention to the disposition/bias/motives of a second layer author/publisher.
That's something about education in general, that second layer of disposition/bias/motive on part of educators (in our country public educators are representatives of the State, another idea the Founding Fathers and maybe even Hamilton would have abhored). The reward for robbing the next generation of the truth is unfathomable control over society. Teachers are not usually bad people but they are caught up between the State's greed and their own C.Y.A. measures. It really pays, as an adult with a passing interest in some aspect of history, to dig into things yourself. It is lucky that this period of American history is within our grasp, only a few hundred years old, and that real pieces of it are still littered around for us to examine in plain, firsthand, in an understandable rendition of our own language.
It’s funny you mention that because I started reading Common Sense last night. Non-fiction is usually a little more challenging to keep your eyes open, but I will be able to make it through. And yes, the style of English takes a little adjustment but overall I enjoy what I’ve read so far about the thought experiment of a small group of men going to unexplored territory and how people get managed as the population scales… I can see the setup for a democratic republic coming. It will probably take me a few nights to get all the way through. Thanks for the recommendation and reminder to read it!
Very nice. It is nod-off material but it is interesting to be immersed in rhetoric that fomented a revolution. Stuff we think of as very basic were very progressive ideas, and the best parts of all those ideas have deteriorated or disappeared. It is really something to peer through history with hindsight.
Hey, in terms of entertainment, if you prefer fiction and you take a liking to older forms of English, I earnestly suggest Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company and Sir Nigel (1906), which is Dolye 100 years ago feigning speech prose from 100's more years ago, and the Oxford World Classics edition of Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory (1470)
Well it's somewhat understandable that schools usually don't cover this kind of stuff. A lot of the extra nuance isn't necessarily in the core documentation, essentially, but in "cliff notes" that many founding fathers had written regarding their thoughts and concerns on the future course and direction of the country.
Still, there really should be more time and attention given to such matters. The level of ignorance and lies spewed by leftists has brainwashed a lot of people into being half-wit citizens in this country.
Modern, not really. Judicial Review was established by the court itself in 1803. If one reviews the text of the Constitution one will not find that ability granted to it.
As far as the ultimate check to federal oversight it's the fourth branch of the government, that they don't teach you about. The states themselves
Until the Feds cucked the states with the power of the Federal Reserve.
States still have nullification, they can refuse federal money, and they can call for a convention of states to create or nullify federal law. States could fight back if they wished but last time they tried it destroyed an entire region and a million deaths.
Yeah, good luck with that
True, but then again the line of battle was literally north vs. south. Now it's all over the place, even within the same state.
Yeah a state would have to make a lot of changes to survive without any federal money. You aren't wrong.
It happens though. States will occasionally not take money for certain programs they don't want to enforce.
Most of them just take the money anyways and stuff their pockets with it. Look at any bill made to give support to inner city schools and every single time the black principal or superintendent will launder that money (most of them don’t even do that) and the school is just the same as it has been since the 80’s. Perhaps black people are mistreated in this society, but it’s not white people doing it. They do it to themselves
All government money is just moved around until it falls into someone's pocket
Someone 👃
If another conflict erupts, it’ll be states versus cities. It won’t go well for the cities, but that’s when foreign interference will arrive. It will get weird.
Political power, foundationally, always rests with the people first, as a natural right. Any form of government, group dynamic, or leadership only exists upon the direct or tacit approval of the people. Tyranny can come in many forms, and concentration of power is dangerous, no matter where or what for. Tyranny can only exist when the people allow it to exist, by a people unwilling to violently and mercilessly destroy it and the people responsible. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, giving the people, up until its erosions, equal footing to any army a tyrant could employ against them. It's a recognition by the authors that political power, and violence, rests with the people, wholly inseparable, and can only be granted to another entity to do for us with the unwritten understanding that we can take it back, at any time, for any reason, and if any dare use their loaned powers to trample upon us, their life becomes forfeit.
There is only one answer to tyranny. This lesson has been learned before. We're in the process of learning it again.
What's the Franklin quote, "Gentlemen we've given you a country, let's see if you can keep it."
"A Republic, if you can keep it!"
Thanks.
founders expected the populace to rise up and overthrow any corruption
what they didn't expect was for commie jews to take full control over every institution in the US after the commie jews won WW2
In fairness normies are taught a falsehood about the founding of the country. It's why people easily will belt out that America is and was founded as a melting pot. It's why people see The Constitution as the law of the land, when really it simply lists the powers the Federal government has.
Do you mean “assault” rather than “automatic?”
They do, but automatic is a real thing. If bullets keep coming out while the trigger is held down, then it is an automatic.
But what about "FULLY SEMI-AUTOMATIC!" LOL!
It means the weapon automatically prepares the next round for firing, like it would during automatic fire but you aren't holding down the trigger
Incidentally, the term "assault rifle" specifically is also a real thing. The coining of the bullshit term "assault weapon" (which really just means any big black scary polymer gun) annoys me to no end, because it's exceedingly clear what the "assault" in assault rifle (which assault weapon is clearly trying to riff off of) actually means if one bothers to look at the historical context. It's specifically intended to mean assault in a military sense, as in assaulting a position, assaulting a base, etc. An assault rifle is a rifle with features convenient for doing that, namely effectively being a fusion between a battle rifle and a sub-machine gun. It's a gun that's designed to be highly useful both at fairly long range, and at very close range.
It's also an archaic usage, back when semiautos were a fairly new technology they were often called automatic because they would automatically load the next round for you and even cock the hammer. So if you see a writer calling something like a 1911 or Webley-Fosbery an auto, its not necessarily wrong if its an ild enough writing, just outdated.
Yeah, stuff like the Patriot Act would make the founding fathers sick to their stomachs and most normies STILL think that was a good thing
the judicial system was never intended to hold the power that it does today
if you actually want to know what the founders thought about all of this, go read The Federalist Papers. They just wrote it all down so you can read it. Skip James Madison's entries. Hamilton entries are all really good.
Why skip Madison? He was slightly retarded. He opposed Hamilton's economic initiatives that Hamilton undertook when he was secretary of the treasury. Imagine opposing the most innovative, the most successful, and the best economic work in the last 250 years. Madison had many other slightly retarded ideas.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Yeah thank the maker for the Federal Reserve. Hamilton was a goober.