On Restoration

There is continuing useful discussion over the utility of "restoring the Constitution" as a primary FreeFor objective. To advance that discussion, I'd offer the following:

A) From an email last week:

To me, there are three important reasons to use the phrase "restore the constitution":

1) Lawfare Ambush KZ: I dare that SOB Holder to use the DOJ mechanism against anybody working or talking to restore the Constitution. I double-dog-dare that MF to do so.

2) PsyOps: When the .mil is sent by the NCA against their fellow citizens, I want each troopie to have to put their reticle on a fellow American standing for the same Constitution that the troopie is oathbound to protect and defend.

3) Paradigm Inflexibility: Many good and honorable people who will stand simply cannot bend their heads around a "return to the Articles" endstate at this time. They will evolve in their thinking, just as I have (hell, I was a freaking drug war prosecutor fifteen years ago -- talk about evolution!), and I can't ask them to both die and give up their core preconceptions right now.

The Old Republic is gone. Here's what we need:



I won't see that flag flown very often, if at all.

And it will take a decade or more to restore more than a handful of stars to the canton.

But it will fly.

Forward.

B) Having noted those pragmatic reasons for the continuing use of the phrase, I'd ask folks to really think through the following questions:

1) When we use the RTC formula, what specifically is being 'restored'? If we are talking about the literal language of the USC/BoR/subsequent amendments (the "as written" approach), what needs to be done about 220 years of Federal court opinions "interpreting" those words? And, having first defined what exactly is to be done with that body of common law (not to mention the judges who beget same), how does one go about doing that in the context of a Restoration conflict?

2) Some specific examples to illustrate the problem:

a) Korematsu vs. United States: Read both the Wiki entry and the actual US Supreme Court case (including the dissents).

Really makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it? Moreover, consider how the language in the following excerpt from the majority opinion could be used against other modern-day Korematsus:

***
Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot -- by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.

-- 323 U. S. at 223-224
***

Remember that Korematsu remains good law today.

b) Roe vs Wade: Again, read both the Wiki and the actual case. Now, put yourself in the midst of the Restoration conflict. Regardless of where you come out on the morality of abortion itself, are you going to shed one drop of sweat (let alone blood) to "protect and defend" the Federalization of what historically was a state law issue? How about your troops? How exactly are you going to persuade them that they should kill and die for this elitist delusion?

c) Brown vs. Board of Education: Once again, read both the Wiki and the case. Now read Articles I-III of the US Constitution and tell me how local educational decisions (no matter how morally abhorrent) are a concern of any of the Federal government's three branches. Think you'll get anyone to follow you into automatic weapons fire over that one?

For more examples of judicial bastardy most foul by both SCOTUS and the rest of the Federal judiciary, please read

- The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, and

- The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.

C) My point in asking these questions is not to belittle in any way those who stand for Constitutional restoration. In fact, as every one of you should know, I stand by your side in that endeavor, both literally and figuratively.

But -- and it is a big damned "But" -- we need to engage a lot more intellect in defining, in detail, just what exactly is meant by "restoration", as well as when those meanings shift. The best I can do at this point is the following concept-line:

- The RTC goal is easily understood and has practical short-term utility (see email excerpt above) in the preparation phase;

- During the conflict phase, the RTC message retains its easily-grasped utility and forces the Bad People's lawfare minions in both the executive and judicial branches to contort themselves madly so as to claim that resistance to their tyranny is illegitimate; and

- During the post-conflict criminal trials, the pre-war Constitution will be the scales upon which prosecution and conviction decisions will be weighed.

That being said, I remain gravely concerned about the RTC goal as the proper framework on which to hang a life-and-death struggle for Freedom, especially given the pre-existing Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, not to mention American Constitution 2.0.

Your thoughts -- expressed logically and without personal rancor, please -- are welcomed in comments below.