Feb 23, 2016

Just a Piece of Paper

via The Right Stuff

The death of Antonin Scalia has led to quite a bit of hyperbole, from claiming that his successor could determine the fate of the planet, to God taking Scalia in order to help Rafael "Refito" Edward "Ted" Cruz win the election. The inference from #cuckservatives is that the American electorate needs to select a "constitutional conservative" for POTUS in order to keep the Supreme Court from tilting too #libshit, and oh, by the way, Trump is NOT a "constitutional conservative."

The entire discussion is retarded.

The #cuckservatives at AmCon had claimed a few years back that this idea of "constitutional conservativism" was fairly new and seemed to be aimed at differentiating themselves from Shrub's brand of "compassionate conservatism." You see, even in 2010, the GOP was aware that Dubya had been the worst President since Carter, and it took a while before President Butt Naked would surpass him on that account.

We can see that this isn't really true if we compare it to some other, similar terms, which are hundreds of times more commonly used.

It’s become apparent that what these #cuckservatives want to do is invoke the warm fuzzies by having their electorate believe that “constitutional conservatives” will select for the Supreme Court only judges who use originalism as their guiding principle when interpreting the Constitution of the United States.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s at least marginally worthwhile to have the discussion about originalism, because without some form of reference to the Founders' intent, the Constitution means merely whatever some group of old Jewish lesbians says it means, and Oy Vey!, nobody wants THAT.

Take a look at the wiki for originalism, it's actually quite funny. Original intent is quite clearly the only logical means of interpretation, despite all the kvetching about its difficulties in practice, but here they are at Wikipedia spending much larger amounts of text on original meaning, semantic originalism, framework originalism, and methodology. It’s almost as if there’s a fifth column at work at that site. I can pretty clearly see the hand of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory doctrine at work in these later interpretation methods, and this Dworkin guy referenced, where have I heard that last name before?

Any intellectually honest student of American history knows, however, that the original intent of the Founders in several matters is very clear, and that in today's political environment, their original intent is also publicly inexpressible. The intent of the Founders was to have a State comprising a nation of WASPs with some number of Negro slaves tolerated, and to build said State for the purpose of handing it down to their children, with immigration being tolerated only for Northwestern Europeans from outside.

The Preamble clearly states the purpose of the document is to provide certain benefits “to ourselves and our posterity". While posterity can have a couple of different meanings, the word “our” suggests the preferred meaning wasn't a general future, but rather, a specific group of related and/or descended persons.

The early voting rights laws of the English Colonies make it clear that it most of the Founders intended to live in a Republic of WASPs, barring the vote to Catholics, Jews, and even some of the Radical Reformation groups such as Quakers. It was only those damnable unlicensed Baptist preachers and James Madison who pushed for Article 6 of the Constitution to disavow any religious tests for office, but, again, intent was clearly WASPish and not to allow Jews, Catholics, or even Christian Orthodox or Muslims to vote or hold office. Maryland kept those fucking kikes out of office until 1828! And all of the above is over and beyond the non-rights of non-Huwhytes to the vote for many more decades.

A look at the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 is instructive; the United States was for Huwhytes. Even the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 makes it clear that the Negroes were only tolerated and allowed to vote as punishment for the conquered Confederacy under Reconstruction, and that the 14th Amendment was not intended in any way to confer “birthright citizenship” to “anchor babies.”

The USA was unquestionably founded by WASPs, for WASPs, based on English common law, and intended to tolerate immigration only from those compatible with the above. THIS was the Founders’ ORIGINAL INTENT. And, clearly, it’s probably no longer feasible to cleave to this intent, at least, not without an awful lot of rope and a whole lot of hard work. Indeed, it would be impossible in the current year to find a sitting judge, attorney, or even someone in law school or considering same to come out and say that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes with respect to the real founding intent, as anybody cleaving to such a plain historical meaning would either be shamed out of a job or flunked out of college.

Therefore, anybody speaking non-ironically about originalism or a constitutionalist appointee to the Supreme Court is really just fucking LARPing.

Which brings one to face another concept, that of constitutionalism itself, the idea of a social contract State which derives its authority from its founding documents. One of the greatest political thinkers of the last century dealt with this in chapter two of volume two of that book about his struggle, and the bottom line point of the matter is this: the only valid conception of the State is that it exists for the furtherance of the Nation, the people from whom its founding originated. The words of the Preamble make it clear that the Fathers agreed with Adolf on these points, that the authority rests in the people themselves, who are a distinct group which does not consist of all peoples (“We the People of the United States”), and that they create and establish the State (“do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”) in order to serve (“in order to ... “)those people and their descendants (“to ourselves and our Posterity”). The people are what’s important, not the State, and certainly not its apparatus or its founding documents.

Ergo, calls to the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” the Constitution Party, LOLbertarianism, appeals to “natural law,” etc., have always been merely the misinformed and misguided children of the so-called “Enlightenment.” As the people inhabiting the country became more and more heterogeneous, the above references became more and more misguided.

The initial situation of the thirteen original colonies was not too untenable, even though Alexis de Tocqueville famously pointed out the differences in culture between north and south and stressed the Puritan founding of the State. But with the Louisiana Purchase, things got worse, as it was feared that all of those Papist French and Spanish bastards, along with free Negroes and Mulattos, would fail to integrate (little did they know that the post-revolution flood of French-speaking Haitians into New Orleans would add to the problem, intentionally so on the part of the French Creole community), and it was correctly thought by some that the Western people’s interests would conflict with that of the (((merchants and bankers))) of New England (the real cause of the War of Northern Aggression). Giving the dindus a vote didn’t help matters, and neither did letting all of those kikes in at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The increasing heterogeneity of the State has contributed to its death, and arguably the worst of the additions was that of the Jew, who furthered and accelerated the process through being behind the largest change in immigration laws in USA history.

The Constitution of the United States of America.

It’s just a piece of paper, goyim.


Instead of worrying about MUH CONSTITUTION, shouldn't the Right really be considering only true rightist ideologues for appointments, or stacking the court, or some form of Caesarism a.k.a. Presidential rule by decree? Because ironically enough, it seems the only way to return to the Founding Fathers’ original intent of the Constitution is to take steps in the interim that totally fucking ignore the actual words written in the Constitution.

Or is that just LARPing on my part?

No comments:

Post a Comment