Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT); our first order of business, is a supremely infantile notion whose origins, not surprisingly, recall the halcyon first-term era of the Clinton Administration. It was a delightful time, Vincent Foster, as I recall, was still alive and the news content always salacious. Ah yes, the Clinton’s, never a blank stare with those two. Where was I? Oh yes, DADT; the notion is completely misanthropic by construct and substantively defiant as to form. How’s that for an intro?
On any subject relative to “choice”, it is as it always should be the right of the sovereign individual to choose subject to two overriding presumptions: (1.) that the choice does not constitute an imposition superior to or suppressing the choice of another. And, (2.) that the consequence of ones choice be confined to the domain of its origin.
The moment we impose a presumption of “right” upon society or in this case, a Nation, every decision that follows assumes the same presumption which of course removes all possible barriers of reason and restraint that might otherwise restrict stupidity and its consequences.
Case in point: A Bill Clinton appointed jurist, Ms. Phillips, mirroring the contempt for and ignorance of the U.S. Constitution championed by the evolved American Judicial System.
In the case of DADT, the Supreme Court of California has made yet another Supreme Failure in adjudicating a response: The Court, Ms. Phillips, applied the malleable notions of interpretation and completely ignored the fundamentals integral to the construct and understanding of this once sacred document. Here are a few points, Constitutional, that all should be aware of:
- No Law, Decision or Judicial Interpretation should be endorsed and/or enforced that orchestrates the created supreme to the Creator. Otherwise, Congress, a President or a Court becomes supreme/superior to you.
- The Constitution grants no right or accommodation for Judicial Interpretation of what constitutes Freedom, Liberty and/or Justice – these rights exist as unalienable and supreme to both the architecture of the Judiciary and its Laws. The Judiciary’s sole duty is the filtering of Law through the fabric of the Constitution and not to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to endorse the preferential intentions of a Laws interpretation. Otherwise, you can make anything legal regardless of the majority’s opposition.
- The Constitution does not recognize “impulse” and/or “choice” as a party to the ideals of “We” and those things that are held to be true. You can not extend a greater level of freedom, liberty and justice beyond the absolute as it exists simply by assigning a greater privilege based solely on the grounds of claiming that it not doing so is “unconstitutional.” To accept that this is practical, rational and sound reasoning is not only absurd but in doing so the result is to make one human being supreme and/or superior to another.
- Imposing the minority of thought upon and supreme to the majority of will is the purest form of hubris I believe possible. To simply practice law as a means to enforce injustice and by permitting the process to occur is to exhibit self-loathing on a national scale. The word “tyranny” should come to mind.
- The Judiciary does not exist outside the rule of law imposed by the consenting governed and evidenced by this Nations Founding Documents. I have no means at my disposal to understand how this concept, as simple and precise as it is, has escaped the grasp of the Public, their Government and Judicial Practices.
As I’ve written before, I truly do not have an issue with choice; if your choice is to be gay or to choose one lifestyle over another, to smoke, engage in dangerous and illicit drug use and so on, it is not my right to interfere with an informed choice. However, a stern objection should be raised in the case where an individuals “choice” becomes enforced upon, over and above a majority who has no such ambition or whose personal compass is adverse to the same. In the case of the Court and the recent DADT decision, how has the Court managed to discover an interpretation of the Constitution that no other student, over the preceding 220 or so years, has never managed to discern. You might ask why is this so? Why has this never been able to occur? Simply put; the interpretation is unsupportable as the structure one would normally apply in the process of adjudication does not exist and is, you should know, beyond the domain of the U.S. Constitution. In the end, this is an example of the “…uninformed being misinformed by the malinformed!”
The Judiciary is primarily staffed with individuals whose knowledge and understanding of the Constitution is on the order of perilously nonexistent. True, there may be some who have regard for its nobility though I confess it matters little as an obstacle for jurists whose judicial pedigree is the equivalent of play-doh.
Let me introduce, briefly, a quick example of the point I intend to make: Congress passed and the President signed a Bill (Health Care) despite overwhelming objection by the People yet no Court has been willing to declare it Unconstitutional. A majority will, a minority enforcement! This is representative government?
Contrary to the quisling’s evolved and derelict misunderstanding of The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, these documents are neither social, fluid nor transient formats. The only “experiment” in progress is whether Man can exhibit the courage to persist in the preservation and perfection of their magnificent ambitions. From all indications, it appears we are not yet committed to their designed and intended outcome.
“In the naked ruse of silence lurks the bridle of ignorance. Champion the nouveau-regime, expressing the new inverse of reason as the absolute, the former now only passing fancy and strangely ironic.”
Freedom exists only in its absolute form, there are no lesser versions!
Curtis C. Greco, Founder