Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Pyramids Are Naturally Upside-Down

Originally Written on December 29th, 2014
Edited and Expanded on December 3rd, 2015
Title Borrowed from Andrew Napolitano

Thanks to the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn, private intrastate non-commerce is now regarded as public interstate commerce. You read that correctly; if you refuse to sell your property, keep it on your own land, and you don’t move it into another state, that is legally the same as going into another state in order to sell your property.
Thanks to the 1964 case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, private intrastate commerce is regarded as interstate commerce affecting the public. You read that correctly; if you set up a business in one state, and you don’t set up any branches in any other states, you are engaged in interstate commerce, because you might serve people from out-of-state. Actually, you might even be required to do so. Additionally, as a result of that case, the distinction between what is public property versus what is private property is blurred and virtually non-existent.
Thanks to the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, private “economic development” projects satisfy the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. You read that correctly; not only has the Supreme Court long since rendered moot the issue of whether you are allowed to refuse government “offers” to buy your property and compensate you for it; now the government can use Eminent Domain to transfer your private property – your home or business – to another private owner, and pay you whatever it damn well pleases.
Thanks to the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case), non-commerce is commerce. You read that correctly; refraining to engage in commerce (in this case, to purchase health insurance) is engaging in commerce. Also, a penalty is now regarded as a tax; the government can fine you a “tax” upon the zero-dollar “transaction” of not buying a health insurance policy. Not only has the Supreme Court long since abandoned the idea that a tax on a good must be modest, and not levied in egregious disproportion to the original value of the good; it now says that an infinity-percent “tax” can be levied upon something that does not even exist?

How long can a civil society survive, when it believes that “public” means “private”, “in-state” means “between states”, not buying something is commerce, and taking someone’s money because they did nothing, is a “tax”, rather than a fine, a penalty, or pure and simple theft?
How long can a civil society survive believing that words have no meaning, or that two plus two equals five?
Cue calliope music.

No comments:

Post a Comment