I can't remember a time when federal judges countermanded presidential executive orders as frequently as they have been doing with Pres. Trump. I do not think that the President has to obey such orders or wait for the Supreme Court to decide. It has become painfully obvious that the courts and system of law are being corrupted into a statist theocracy ruled by lawyers and judges belonging to an exclusive club with a monopoly on the power of the 'law.' The Supreme Court is so obviously partisan, that they do not deserve life-long appointments to secure their power forever.

Yes, "when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void," but what court will rule against its own usurpation of power?

Regarding the laws prohibiting 'drugs' or alcohol, this is a declaration of war against people who are violating no one's rights. It is an offensive act with NO authority or consent granted -- it is mob rule, no less than a KKK lynching. And it is about MONEY and POWER, let there be no doubt. Alcohol prohibition birthed the police-state in which all are subject to arbitrary search and seizure -- everyone considered a suspect of breaking the law. Once that was struck down, the long arm of the law was used to enforce marijuana prohibition, then later whatever substances the government 'declared' prohibited. The drug war protects the monopoly on medicine by the medical union/establishment which profits immensely from pharmaceuticals that kill more people than all illegal drugs combined (not even close).

Under Obama's EPA, federal jurisdiction is claimed over every State -- a pond must be approved or filled in. There are literally hundreds more examples of government overreach passing more 'laws' every day that are arbitrary and assumed to be in the jurisdiction of Congress.

The IRS makes us sign our labors away, even though the study of the origin of the IRS and its powers reveal that most people are not subject to these taxes -- they have been conned into agreeing to pay them 'voluntarily.' Yet, just try and make this argument in a tax court (with no jury or due process).

America's tryst with fiat banking, socialist democracy, and straight up authoritarianism are the balls and chains that hold us. Is there any hope for what John Adams called the 'American mind' ?

This knowledge was common enough among juries during Prohibition trials that many defendants were acquitted by juries despite breaking the law. Juries are the final veto of bad laws, if they choose to exercise their right to do so.

Spooner is the the boy who says, "the emperor is wearing no clothes." He points to our true delusion. We grimace, then hope the boy shuts up...

The socialist 'revolution' of America is being carried out administratively from within. Armies of lawyers and their staffs, work tirelessly behind the scenes, monopolizing 'due process' itself, re-writing statutes, extending their jurisdiction, extorting high fees and a share of the spoils, placing themselves as authorities and enforcers of the law.

My childhood friend is now a lawyer and describes his work: "I sue people." Lawyers need defendants, or they sue people -- that's what they do for money, and they demand the highest fees because the legal fraternity is a private monopoly, lawyers may not practice without their certification.

Socialism is a lawyer's dream! Social justice warriors defend their dependencies and call them 'rights' with armies of lawyers ready to 'defend' them. Their so-called rights, though, are a claim to the fruits of other people's labors, and without lawyers to sue me for not contributing my 'fair share' (as they have defined it), their only other alternative would be to take it from me by force themselves. That perversion of the law is the very process that feeds the Leviathan.

The credo of Caesar -- enough said.

I am wary of anything 'broadcasted' or 'produced' by the MSM. The message is contrived to stimulate a reaction -- it is not just an advertising medium, it is a selling medium. You believe it, you bought it, it's yours, it's part of your own narrative now. As for 'public' education, it's more of the same, to 'program' rather than 'enlighten,' making sure to put the right spin on the 'information.' Consider how involved schools are in 'identity-politics', gender, race, sexuality -- promoting victimhood, rather than inspiring personal responsibility, honor, virtue.

If you want a REAL education, you'll have to ask your own questions and do some research. The truth will set you free, but it will also make you mad -- and glad, too. ;-)

I can cut Madison some slack. ;-) He's talking about Liberty and Learning together. What will be learned with the liberty to learn? What does one seek? Truth? Knowledge? See, the point in Liberty is the choice to follow any path, and let the destination be the impetus for the next leg of the journey -- maybe even turn around. Whether it is Virtue or Truth or Wisdom that may be the true foundation of it all, the answer is a result of the quest -- without asking the question, giving me the 'answer' has no place for it to be put, it hasn't a place to take hold. I suppose Madison's assertion is that taken hand in hand Liberty and Learning will fulfill.

The question "What is Freedom?" depends on how I answer the other question "Who do I think I am?"

What happened?!!

"[I]ndividualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind..." I don't agree. As an individual I do not claim omniscience, I have more questions than answers, and I do not believe every idea that comes into my head/heart. For me, 'thinking' is a dialogue, every idea is met with a response. To reason well, it is helpful to speak with another so that each may consider and respond truthfully. That 'truth process' leads to revelation, as the 'truth' already 'is,' and we are merely trying to discern it.

Perhaps the word 'Conscience' would be better than 'Heart.' Then we don't have to use 'heart' as a metaphor. To have the liberty to act according to one's conscience does not insulate us against the consequences of the action. Our conscience may not be 'right' but it IS our right to act according to conscience as long as it respects the 'rights' of others.

The search for Truth may ultimately be simply the discarding of that which is not true -- in the end, I believe the truth is to be spoken, even if it is "I'm not sure." So, to that end, I DO believe the truth resides in the 'heart.' ;-)

Mick, I doubt it -- if the UK allowed gun ownership, even in this climate, the crime rate would most likely resemble Canada -- there are even more guns per capita in Canada than in the US. What makes a 'male' disadvantaged? How is being a man a handicap? Why should victimization trump personal responsibility? Your government is DISempowering the people, making them dependent upon the promises of government, which they cannot keep -- they do not produce anything other than IOU's, and eventually the con falls on its face. The accompanying economic collapse merely concentrates more power in the hands of the powers-that-should-not-be. You are essentially a slave, demanding better conditions of your servitude, not condemning the practice, but wishing it upon everyone else, too.

Robert, RBESRQ is you... why don't you want to tell us WHY you now carry a concealed weapon?

John, if you wish to be brief, then be brief. ;-) If you have a point, it is hard to decipher here. Start with the distinction between natural law and 'rules' made by people that they call 'laws' -- they are in fact 'statutes.' As Mike has explained in previous posts, the founders attempted to structure a government that was not centralized like an immovable pyramid of power, but to promote and protect a way of living that would be in harmony with what they believed to be in accordance with natural law. They drew upon the writings of great thinkers and philosophers as well as the Bible and Christian principles of love, forgiveness, forbearance, honor, and a trust in the God of Nature. The ideal was a community living in harmony with each other, offering mutual protection.

Were they fooling themselves because there is no 'right' order, no natural law? Or have their statutes been elevated to positivist 'law' and in opposition to natural law?

As a child I wondered why the 10 commandments were mostly 'negativist' ("Thou shall not ...") -- I wondered, why isn't the commandment "Thou shall tell the truth" rather than "do not bear false witness." It is because the commandments are not laws in and of themselves, they are 'rules' to follow in order to be in accordance with natural law.

What is the 'natural law'? It is what it is, it is up to us to figure it out. "As you sow, so shall you reap." -- that is the law. "Treat people the way you would like to be treated." -- that is the golden 'rule' -- why? Because of the law, as you so, so shall you reap.

It becomes a problem when people attempt to punish a person for breaking the rules, when the rules were there to protect people from the natural consequences of the law.

The point I am trying to make is that natural law does exist, along with a 'philosophy' about it. That philosophy does become clearer, as we stumble upon the truth along the way. It's all a big dialogue -- we must pay attention to the response of our actions if we are to learn from them.

Good point, Mike. Anyone believing they ARE our rulers, deserve to be reminded otherwise -- that is THE primary purpose of an armed citizenry.

RBE, recently you posted that you now have a concealed carry permit and you have been giving 5 stars to gun quotes that you gave thumbs down to years before. Please, do share with us your change of heart.

Mick, apparently I am safer in NYC than London these days as the violent crime rate there has skyrocketed due to knife and acid attacks -- guns, too, as apparently the criminals kept their guns despite the ban. And of course, no one wants to talk about the massive rise in Muslim violent crime in Western cities.

It should be remembered that the Constitution is the rule book for the government, not the people. The amendments that quickly followed were to add specific prohibitions to the government -- that "Congress make no law ..." to disarm the people or to regulate speech or religion (among other 'rights' asserted by the people). These prohibitions on government power are the security of the people ONLY if the people in government follow the rules -- if they don't, what are the people to do? That's why the US republican form of government was designed to keep power in check.

All political power originates with the individual for the security of the individual. Government is formed as an AGREEMENT with other individuals, responsible in their own rights, for the purposes of a COMMON defense. Our rights are the foundation of the agreement, not the price for it.

Robert, is that you? Editor, can you check if someone else is posting as Robert? ;-) If it IS you, would you please explain your change of heart?

Right on!

Robert, I'd like to know what has changed your mind about personal ownership of arms. You mentioned in a previous post that you now have a concealed carry permit. For the last few years you have been on the other side of the argument. What has changed your mind?

How's that working out for you, Mick? London has been dealing with a massive uptick in violent crime. And now that guns have already been banned, the Mayor is now pushing for the abolition of knives (since the bulk of the violent crime is with knives -- there are still gun crimes, though, by those criminals that possess guns even though it is against the law). London's crime stats have surpassed NYC! But pick any county or state that has not prohibited weapons and look at their crimes stats -- particularly right after passing such legislation -- crime dropping exponentially.

What has happened to the British mindset? I guess it is the same as it was back in 1776 -- subjects of a Crown and obligated to obey (for their own good, of course). You do realize Americans do NOT think that way?

Thanks to Enrique Artinano Odio, Costa Rica for a great explanation. Central America has had its fair share of communism and socialism foisted upon it with nothing but debt and violence to show for it -- look at Venezuela right now. The definitions of the political right and left do not reflect their origins in the French legislature after the French Revolution. The left side of the legislature were the socialists and the right were the liberals (libertarian today). They were the statists vs the libertarians, the authoritarian vs the sovereign, the totalitarian vs the individual, socialism vs republicanism. Today, the 'right' has merely been co-opted by the authoritarians that seek to rule all. Just look at who are the super wealthy today: follow the source of their fortunes to government contracts and subsidies.

The USA's government fits the true definition of fascism today -- it is not a republican form of government.

@John Draper, Gandhi lived in an ashram, a form of voluntary communalism. That is not socialism or communism or fascism because it is by choice -- the individual is still responsible and a noble sovereign. To live in such a community is an option in a free country -- to make everyone live in it is totalitarianism. Gandhi never suggested such. If you really think that THAT is true socialism, then is that what you are hoping for in America? Jeez, can't I decide for myself what I would like to devote my life to? Again, do you 'socialists' not see that you are totalitarians thinking you are humanitarians?

Hitler's policies were loved by the German people -- until they didn't and couldn't stop the transfer of power from the socialist party that put Hitler and his ilk in power to Hitler himself as dictator for life. This is the classic socialist con. Once in power, the elected move to make their office permanent. Pick a Banana Republic and you'll see the same strategy over and over. Even China now has a life-long dictator -- supposedly voted by the people. Socialist Venezuela's Maduro has done the same thing, replaced the legislature with a ruling council -- and his wife owns all the oil somehow. Zelaya tried to do that in Honduras but didn't get away with it. Let's see who else ...c'mon do your own research, it is Political Science 101. Every socialist revolution has resulted in a totalitarian government even more oppressive than before. Prove me wrong.

Denial runs SO deep among socialists...

Yes, Mike, the USA is still bankrupt and in receivership to the Federal Reserve Bank (a private central bank). All the gold was seized as collateral, and the currency switched from gold-backed to IOU-backed (with interest due). As a result, income taxes were required by the Fed to guarantee the interest on the government's debt. NO effort has been made to end the bankruptcy -- in fact, today's USA's debt is more than the entire money supply!!

But here's the thing that Mike touched upon that gets very little attention: the incorporation of the states into corporate entities governed by commercial statutes. The sovereign state 'New York State' has been incorporated as 'The State of New York' and California Republic incorporated as 'The State of California'. These corporate states are now subject -- not sovereign -- to the corporation 'United States.'

Lawyers have facilitated this redefinition of the law to suit themselves and place them at the top of the power pyramid. Statist theocracy indeed. This is fascism pure and simple.