So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded

“So you say you want a revolution.” When they sang those lines, the Beatles could well have been talking about Democratic leaders today. Revolution seems much in the minds and the rhetoric of politicians who are continuing to threaten swift responses to the Court if it rules against their wishes. The latest armchair revolutionary is President Joe Biden himself who went on Jimmy Kimmel to do the first sit down interview in months. To his credit, Biden was promising only a “mini-Revolution.”

Others have gone full revolutionary.  Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else.  The “else” varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of “revolution.”

Clearly, these leaders are using over-heated rhetoric and do not support violence. They no more want true revolution than Sen. Chuck Schumer was calling for the killing of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch when he declared on the steps of Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Calling for revolutionary change in politics is as common as calling on people to “fight” political opponents or legislative actions. For example, with rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.”

However, these same politicians have insisted that such references are literal when made by their opponents.  Notably, Democrats are holding hearings this week on how Republicans bear responsibility for the Jan. 6th riot due to their calls to “fight” against certification of the 2020 election. On that day, there is no question that Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy. I was critical of the speech while he was giving it. However, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

There is little attention to how such rhetoric has been common on the left.

Of course, having leaders like Biden and Shaheen channeling revolutionary rhetoric is more vapid than violent. You can put on a beret and chomp on a cigar but it does not make you Che Guevara. It is clear that he meant a political revolution, but the President was engaging in the same ultimatum and saber rattling.

It is the underlying message that is worrisome. It is part of a long series of threats to the Supreme Court that it must yield on the interpretation of the Constitution or face radical changes to the institution. The President is not alone in presenting the Court with this yield-or-else choice.

Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority.  This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, is not willing to wait and has called to pack the Court. She denounced the court for voting wrongly on decisions and, perish the thought, against “widely held public opinion.”

The attacks on the institution have become attacks on the members of the institution. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justice “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.”

Such calls can take on a more menacing meaning in the twisted minds of some who may think that “more aggressive tactics” include showing up at a justice’s house with a Glock handgun, zip ties, and burglary tools. Again, that is not the intention of such remarks but the endorsement of targeting justices at their homes shows a complete collapse in our sense of decency and responsibility.

Sixties Radical Abbie Hoffman once said that the “first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” It remains to be seen if the public will allow these politicians to get away with it and support calls for changing the Court or retaliating against individual members. With the support of many in the media and academia, the reckless rhetoric is likely to continue.

However, there should be no question about the import of the underlying message that it is appropriate for politicians to pack or legislatively change the court if it does not rule the way that they and “public opinion” demand. Such proposals would destroy one of the core institutions of our constitution system.

That is why “when you talk about destruction” of our traditions of judicial review, as the Beatles declared in 1968, “you can count me out.”




134 thoughts on “So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded”

  1. Assassinating politicians “harming the country or our democracy” is now a growing trend with Democrats. Not surprising but what is surprising is that SPLC published it. Otherwise, yeah, Biden is doing a heckuva job uniting the country.



    When we asked people if they would approve of specific violent action, approval declined but was still worryingly substantial. When we asked, for example, whether people approved of threatening a politician who is “harming the country or our democracy,” 24% approved. When we asked if people approved of assassinating a politician described in the same way, 1 in 5 approved. Levels of approval for both scenarios were slightly higher for Democrats than Republicans, driven largely by the approval of younger Democratic men.


    Americans were FREED by the Constitution.

    Americans were not ENSLAVED by the Constitution.

    Government was ENSLAVED by the Constitution.

    Government was not FREED by the Constitution.

    Americans were not enslaved by an infinite number of departments, agencies and bureaucratic dictators, each holding dominion over his own little fiefdom.

    As you read the Constitution, keep that premise in mind.

  3. And they wonder why people are going crazy? I think the old man better shut the hell up because he might just get what he wants and it will not be pretty for anybody. But then again, he goes around libeling anyone against his policies as racist, misogynist and homophobic. It is Turley’s Age of Rage. This crazy old man is burning down the country, one day at a time.

  4. Originalism Allows Dead Hand Of Disreputable Past To Choke The Present (women of 18 and 19th centuries had no rights)

    Justice Alito’s core assumption is that constitutional rights are limited only to those specifically named in the Constitution and the various amendments, or incorporated at the time in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “liberty”—a reference to rights, Alito says, which were “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Abortion, per Justice Alito, doesn’t qualify.

    To paraphrase Justice Alito, his analysis is wrong from the start. According to a relevant historical document, the Declaration of Independence, the authority of all political states arises from “the consent of the governed.” Governments have only the authority that the citizenry at large gives them in the first place. As a result, rights do not have to be specified in the Constitution if no one could conceive of a limited government having the power to restrict personal liberty in a particular way.

    This is why Roe correctly found that abortion rights were supported by the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the Ninth Amendment says specifically that Alito’s narrow view of the sources of our rights is incorrect, and that certain fundamental liberties are retained by the people, and are not subject to governmental restraint. (Roe also held that the 14th Amendment’s “concept of personal liberty” protects “a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”)

    Even the framers would have been shocked to hear that any government, state or federal, could claim the authority, from the instant of conception, to require citizens to bear children. Indeed, despite some desperate fumfering, even Justice Alito concedes that at the time of the Constitution, abortions before “quickening”—when fetuses are felt to move, somewhere between the 16th and 18th week—were not generally prohibited, very much like Roe’s permission to abort before viability.

    That said, to engage in this debate about the framers is to fall prey to the most detestable aspects of originalism that allow the dead hand of a disreputable past to place a choke hold on citizens today. It is preposterous to apply the thinking of 1788—or even 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified—to contemporary times. In the 18th and 19th centuries, American women were still unable to vote, their rights to own property were still not recognized in much of the country, and consensual sex outside of marriage was a crime called “fornication.” Moreover, contemporary notions of family planning did not exist because of the lack of reliable means of contraception. To let that worldview guide our modern society obstructs us from adopting a more enlightened understanding of those freedoms that we deem fundamental and beyond control by executive or legislative whims.

    1. Imagine, you present this idea at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

      Hey guys, let’s kill babies in the womb, per the pour-over 9th Amendment.

      Yeah, “we don’t need no stinking babies” to build our brand spanking new nation.

      Great idea, Ninny!

      Now let’s go grab (no, not —-y) a pint of Mr. Hare’s Porter at the Inn!

      Seriously, I think they may have meant all conceivable, reasonable, natural and God-given rights and freedoms, clearly excluding heinous, unimaginable, irrational, unnatural and devil-given infanticide, and any and all other forms of murder.

      You insane communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) really need a cognitive tune-up, nay, complete overhaul.

    2. shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      Tell us. How would The People retain this previously unknown right?

      Well gee looky. Right there in the constitution, is the process to amend the Constitution. Exactly the same way the Bill of Rights, protected inalienable rights of Man from abuse by the newly minted federal government. While at the same time, nothing about the Judiciary mining rights, from the penumbra, and emanations. If one branch of the federal govt has the power to create rights, it has to be obvious, that the Legislative Branch, and the Executive Branch would have co-equal power.

      1. Stooge,

        7 Republican-appointed judges voted for Roe in 1973.

        Explain why these Republican-appointed judges are wiser.

      2. The “letter” is amendment.

        The “spirit” is without injury.

        “…amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution,…”

        ”And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

        – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

        The constitutional amendment process does not include duress, coercion, compulsion, force of arms, brutal post-war military occupation and improper and corrupt ratification, as was the case with Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments,” which were rammed through by poor Lincoln’s communist successors.

    3. “Originalism Allows Dead Hand Of Disreputable Past To Choke The Present (women of 18 and 19th centuries had no rights)”

      I will again bring up the fact that post American Revolution formally years women had the right to vote in one state. I will also add that America has been kind to all people including women. Check out how women fare in most other countries.

    4. Most of your argument is straight originalism.

      Alito’s oppinion is NOT originalist. Many solid originalists such as Randy Barnett took the legs out from under this faux borkean originalism long ago.

      However “Originalism Allows Dead Hand Of Disreputable Past To Choke The Present”

      Is complete nonsense. If you do not like the meaning of the constitution or the law as it was written, of you think things ahve changed and it is out of date, you are free to change the law or amend the constitution.

      Amending the constitution is less difficult that it was to write and ratify.
      Further you can convene a new constitutional convention and rewrite the whole thing – and be assured it will mean what you want it to. ‘

      ‘What you can not do is shortcut the process of changing the constitution by getting a handful of unelected judges to decide it should mean something different than it did.

      Our courts – including the supreme court do not exist to decide what the law SHOULD be – only what it is.

      WE decide what it SHOULD be, we do so by changing it.

      The constitution is alive – because WE can change it – by amending it, or by holding a constitutional convention are writing a new one.

      The actual “rule of law – not man”, requires that laws including the constitution are changed by the same process used to create them in the first place. Not by the dictat of a few people. That is lawless.

  5. Had there still been Journalists in the Press Corps when Schumer made his statements specifically mentioning Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Schumer would have been asked any of the following questions by one or more of those Journalists: Are you calling for violence against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Do you understand that the separation of powers built into our Constitution do not provide Senators any rights to threaten Justices with making judicial decisions on cases before the Supreme Court which decisions a Senator does not like? Senator Schumer — do you understand the unintended consequences of your speech? And what would you say, Senator Schumer, if Chief Justice Roberts publicly called for citizens to threaten you at your home and at your D.C. office, armed citizens?
    In November, 2022, when and if the GOP retakes control of both Houses of Congress, the list of Democrats in Congress who may very well be called to account for their words, and their actions, will be enormous.

    This country has had a double standard for a very long time, and it is growing by leaps and bounds, first under Barack Hussein Obama, and now under Joseph Robinette Biden.
    One thing I think most of us who read Turley daily can agree on is this: Obama did not have any cognitive disability whatsoever – he knew precisely what he was doing at all times: Biden by contrast has obvious cognitive challenges which are as plain as plain can be and frequently is uttering words his ‘handlers’ have chosen for him to utter.

    I’ve asked this previously at this blog: Other than Joseph Biden, name a US President who’s had his statements ‘walked back’ and/or ‘clarified’ by his staff/handlers as frequently as Joe’s statements have had to be explained/walked back/clarified? How about a POTUS who has EVER had his statements ‘walked back’? If I were to guess, I’d say not one President since George Washington. But any of you who are presidential historians might know of a few cases where it’s happened before —

    And our allies and our enemies around the globe are all watching, very closely. Which of them, the allies or the enemies, are thrilled with Joe’s apparent haplessness?

    1. Richard Lowe,
      Your last line says it all.
      Economist Charles H. Smith always asks the question, “Who benefits?”
      I think not just our enemies would like to see the downfall of America, but some of our so-called allies too.

  6. “The reason Speaker Pelosi won’t move on a bill protecting Supreme Court Justices is that she wants them to be intimidated, or at least wants pro-choice donors and activists to feel she supports the intimidation effort. She won’t do what’s right even after an assassination attempt.” ~joel pollak

    For shame on all Democrat politicans and their fake news propaganda media that won’t even report on the Kavanaugh assasination attempt. They are intentionally destroying the country, tearing it apart at the seams. Joe Biden is to blame for all of it.

    1. Don’t leave out Obama and his role in the blame for the current state of affairs — Joe and Barack share the blame, perhaps not equally, but they share it.

      1. Richard, you are absolutely right. Barack more than Joe, because Barack is certainly more coherent than the big guy.

      1. Because they WELCOME it. They want to the person who doesn’t know what a woman is on the court so they can sway the vote their way. Nothing surprises me anymore with this government.

    2. Joel Pollak has it absolutely right. But I think they want more than that: the assassination of one or two of the five Justices said to be in the Dobbs majority would preserve Roe/Casey and allow appointments by Biden to change the balance on the court. Assassination is the alternative to court packing and impeachment, which they know they cannot accomplish. They are seeking to create a climate conducive to assassination, and the DOJ is participating by not enforcing 18 USC 1507.


      So what assumes control after the nation is torn apart and destroyed, a freedom-assuring, restricted-vote, republic, under the dominion of the U.S. Constitution, the greatest document on self-governance in the history of man?

      Perhaps “the dictatorship of the proletariat” as engendered by Karl Marx with the capable assistance (and mass murder) of his ally and bff, Abraham Lincoln?

  7. “We’ve been told tonight’s version of Congressional Love Boat with cameo appearances by numerous Capitol actors will focus on the Proud Boys—some of whom breached the exterior perimeter around 1pm. Ray Epps was right there but clips will be edited to cut him out of the scene.” ~julie kelley

  8. So it is OK for Schumer and Dem et als to generate an insurrection againgst the SC which endangers their lives? Let me apprise. They don’t want the fly overes to get riled up. That is one primary reason the Japanese did not attempt to invade the West Coast in WWII.

  9. Clearly, these leaders are using over-heated rhetoric and do not support violence.

    How could you possibly know that? They know their audience, hell, they created them. Their calculated rhetoric is aimed directly at the useful idiots the government schools have been pumping out for generations. They are The True Believers in the mass movement sense, that Eric Hoffer describes in his book of the same title.

    The reason they’ve gone full speed ahead on censorship is they cannot risk their demoralized creation getting infected by an alternative viewpoint. Kant described their relationship:

    First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves.

    Biden’s 33% approval rating are these true believers.

  10. I’m tired of reading about helicopter crashes that kill soldiers. It happens quite frequently. It’s probably always due to the blades striking an immovable object. Someone should please design a new transport vehicle, to replace the helicopter, that is basically a gigantic drone that can carry a lot of soldiers. The propellors can be a encased in some kind of enclosure, like the frame of a room fan, so that the propellors can’t
    strike anything, the frame a barrier coming between the propellors and whatever the propellors could strike. It would be much safer. Thank you.

    1. The military is inheirenty dangerous. Out side of war zones, they might be safer than lumber jacks, miners, or farmers. For sure safer than billionaire sex perverts in a jail cell, or people that get close to Hillary Clinton.

  11. “You can put on a beret and chomp on a cigar but it does not make you Che Guevara.”

    OK, but what if they remove the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms?

    What about weaponizing the 3 letter agencies against conservatives? How about the FBI dragging off a Congressional candidate because he was outside the Capitol building on Jan 6, but never entered the building? What about the FBI covering for Hillary Clinton but going after Trump and his associates? What about the FBI agent who altered the CIA email confirming Carter Page worked with them, until it made Page look like a Russian asset? What about lying to the FISA court? What about promoting the debunked Russia hoax in order to undermine a sitting US president for political purposes? What about ignoring Joe Biden’s admitted quid pro quo with Ukraine, but pretending it was a constitutional crisis and impeachable offense for Trump to inquire about it? Leftist activists tried their hardest to get a lawfully elected president removed from office. Now they’re threatening Supreme Court justices who might not vote their way. If the trend continues, we won’t have a duly elected republic, but an oligarchy.

    Sure, it takes more than a beret and cigar. It takes control of the government. The political force that moves 3 letter agencies and the vast bureaucracy matters more than who sits behind the Resolution Desk.

    1. Karen, I heard on the radio today, the feds arrested a Republican Candidate for Governor of Michigan, for being in the crowd. So now they are arresting political foes of the DoJ (Republicans)

  12. Maxine Waters:

    “You have to go out there, and make a crowd, and make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.”

    But, by all means, let’s put the full force of the US government into anyone who attended the rally on Jan 6, whether they rioted or not, and let’s pretend that Trump telling his followers to peacefully let their voices be heard was the worst ever.

    That’s what the Left does with power; it weaponizes it against dissenters. This is true whether it’s Stalin, the CCP, North Korea, Venezuela, or the USSR.

  13. Politics could be improved by the Golden Rule.

    Those of you who don’t care that protestors have harassed Supreme Court Justices in their homes, with one man actually planning to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh…how would you feel if people did this to promote abortion limits?

    For those of you who don’t care that Chuck Schumer said Kavanaugh had “released the whirlwind”, and made threats about consequences, why did you care when Trump told his followers to peacefully and legally let their voices be heard?

    For those of you excusing BLM and Antifa burning, looting, and assaulting people in blue-run cities, how would you feel if it were people on the right?

    For those of you who supported the seizure of entire city blocks of Seattle, turning it into an “Autonomous Zone”, which was a euphemism for sedition, how would you feel if conservatives took those blocks?

    That’s how you know you’re wrong, if you wouldn’t allow the other side to do the exact same thing.

    Now, I actually view Chuck Schumer’s words to be free speech. While I agree that threatening rhetoric should be toned down, he had a right to his opinion. I also think everyone should be held to the same standard. If it was OK for Nancy Pelosi to say, “I don’t understand why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe there will be”, then it was OK for Trump to tell people to let their voices be peacefully heard.

    1. Karen,
      This, unfortunately, is no longer politics as usual as you have clearly articulated. This is an outright attack on the United States of America that is well funded and meticulously coordinated.

    2. Karen S,
      This is day and age of rage, by any means necessary is not just a meme, but at the center of their cult like religion is an excuse for all that which you listed.
      They use it like a talisman to justify the arson, looting, assaulting but ignore or even acknowledge the deaths they cause (recall retired St. Louis Police Department Captain David Dorn? Shot by rioters while trying to defend a friends pawn shop).
      They are protesting outside of SC Justices homes. NOT intimidating them they insist!
      Read some of the RuthSentUs tweets.
      They are chilling.
      And intimidating.

      I do fear for our country and where things are leading.

    3. Karen S, you hit the nail on the head. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Can you imagine how everything gets better if we all practice that 24/7. Including our servants in the governments of this federal republic. That’s what Ben Franklin had in mind when he said it’s a republic if you can keep it.

  14. So basically….

    Biden wants us to have no gas, no food, no baby formula, no religion, no free speech…and no guns?

    Not. gonna. happen Joey.

    1. I get what you are saying.

      What I fear is we are approaching a point where it becomes binary and we are forced into one of two choices: Red vs Blue.
      I am a registered Independent. Did not vote for Trump. I donated money to Tulsi Gabbard twice and would of a third time had she not dropped out. I am on her mailing list.
      Looking at the insanity the Left has pushed the Dem party to, if it comes down to it, Red vs Blue, I have to go with Red.
      It is the only sane choice.
      I think a number of minorities, Independents are seeing the same.
      I even know a few life long Dems who are like, WTF has happened to my party? This is not their fathers Dem party.

      1. I didn’t leave the Democrat party the democrat party left me. Ronald Reagan

  15. The pretext of neutrality is not accomplished with false balance.

    Trump has never used the kind of rhetoric, including the specific calls for violence commonly used used by the left. He opposed the months of actual rioting in the streets that were egged on by Democrat politicians (even bailed out). That’s why the media had to make up the “dog whistle” and other nonsensical fakery.

    Regarding Jan. 6, Trump authorized the National Guard to assure no shenanigans, and this not only was thwarted by the anti-Trumpers, but feds and their operatives worked hard to create an illusion of Trump rallygoers committing “violence”.

  16. RE: “However, these same politicians have insisted that such references are literal when made by their opponents…” An oft quoted phrase is ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. Hence whether or not ‘the mob is right’ will depend upon one’s point of view. Turley makes it clear, in his narrative, that the consequences of what spews from the craw of the likes of a Maxine Waters and other of her ilk may be directly proportional to the intensity of the twisted and warped mind between the ears upon which it falls.

  17. “So you say you want a revolution.” When they sang those lines, the Beatles could well have been talking about Democratic leaders today. Revolution seems much in the minds and the rhetoric of politicians who are continuing to threaten swift responses to the Court if it rules against their wishes.”
    A TORTOISE, lazily basking in the sun, complained to the sea-birds of her hard fate, that no one would teach her to fly. An Eagle, hovering near, heard her lamentation and demanded what reward she would give him, if he would take her aloft and float her in the air. I will give you, she said, all the riches of the Red Sea. I will teach you to fly then, said the Eagle; and taking her up in his talons he carried her almost to the clouds, – when suddenly letting her go, and she fell on a lofty mountain and dashed her shell to pieces. The Tortoise exclaimed in the moment of death: I have deserved my present fate; for what had I to do with wings and clouds, who can with difficulty move about on the earth?

    If men had all they wished, they would be often ruined.

    ~Aesop’s Fables

    Amen, brother Aesop.

    1. Mespo, please go back a few days – the NLRB is a constitutionally established tribunal, but Congress cannot manipulate the NLRB in order to circumvent the Constitution and unconstitutionally regulate private property enterprises or private enterprises’ labor relations – the owners of private, distinctly not public, property are the sole arbiters of all private enterprise operations comprehensively, lest they become public property, and citizens enjoy the freedom to accept or reject offers of employment.

      REF: “It’s a slippery slope but Article I, Sec. 8 courts are established by Congress as inferior tribunals to Art. III courts and their judges don’t have lifetime tenure or salary protections. They handle adminstrative cases based on federal legislation rather than the Article III courts which sit nisi prius (or as triers of general issues of fact with a jury).”

      1. The Beatles “revolution song” is anti revolution song. ” If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow!”.

      2. George:

        The NLRB is an independent agency. I’m not sure exactly what that is since the Constitution makes no such provision stating only “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Independent agencies seem beholden to no one. I’ve long thought the DOJ was not independent but merely an ancillary to the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President. This notion that DOJ operates independently of the President seems a bit odd since the President is the “chief magistate” whatever that is. Regardless, agencies like the NLRB take it upon tjhemselves to adjudicate matters within their jurisdiction (though they love expanding it) and serve as Article I courts pursuant to their Congressional mandate. I’ve never favored these “inferior” courts while acknowledgiing they do have expertise other courts (like Art. III courts) might not. it seems an unholy mixing of executive, adminstrative and judicial branches beholding to no one and only appealable to the Federal Courts of Appeal. Administartive Law is murky stuff. Maybe that’s why the Administrative State is just another name for the unaccountable Deep State.

        1. . This notion that DOJ operates independently of the President seems a bit odd

          It is only a notion. Nothing base on facts. The AG works for and at the pleasure of the President.

          Independece is the magic show put on by DC to fool the rubes.

          Like every single thing in DC, its transactional. The President can openly order the AG around. The only cost is political capital. Which, if the media is nothing but the President’s propaganda office, is of little concern.




          In Article 1, Section 8, it appears that the goals and the function of the NLRB are unconstitutional, as collective so-called “labor” is enumerated no specific and superior rights or powers by the Constitution, even as Congress is enumerated the power to constitute tribunals and inferior courts.

          Article 1, Section 8

          The Congress shall have the power to…constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;…

          Article 3, Section 1

          The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

          Congress is enumerated no power to regulate private property, employment, employee compensation, facilities, operations, safety, etc., or to regulate through legislation.

          Congress has no power to “claim or exercise” any degree of dominion over private property, or to legislate any ability to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property.

          The sole arbiter regarding all aspects of free enterprise and enterprise employment is the owner of private property.

          Congress has no power to deny the right to private property.

          Congress has no power to establish a court or tribunal in order to allow Congress to regulate private property.

          The Supreme Court must strike down legislation which ordains a National Labor Relations Board or provides Congress the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property, related contracts of employment, or any other private property and free enterprise functions or operations.

          Individuals and citizens enjoy the freedom to accept or reject employment on the terms proffered by the employer.

          Employees are provided no separate, superior and particular employment rights, employment compensation or employment benefits by the Constitution.

          Employees have no power enumerated by the Constitution to “strike,” to fail to present for duties, to fail to meet employer requirements, to disrupt the hiring of replacement workers, or to otherwise disrupt the operations of private property enterprises, etc.

          If the right to private property is not absolute, the right to private property does not exist, and the U.S. government is a dictatorship.

        3. “Maybe that’s why the Administrative State is just another name for the unaccountable Deep State”

          Yes, that’s as I see it, in extreme need to be brought to heel under the USC, as Administrative Courts are not now.


          One thing I like about Blueprints, Abstracts, Flowcharts, etc. they show the whole project.

  18. Maybe we take stock in something the Duke of Wellington said in his memoirs about the Battle of Waterloo. Late in the day Napoleon knew he was losing, and sent in his Old Guard. It’s reputation was it never retreats. They advanced and folded up like a cheap card table. Wellington said “they came at us in the same old way and we sent them along in the same old way”.

  19. “So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded”

    – Professor Turley

    And, of course, the Revolution began in 1860.

    It continues to this day.

    Abraham Lincoln was a disciple of Karl Marx; he implemented the effective abrogation of the Constitution and the incremental and progressive implementation of the principles of communism.

    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

    – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

    “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

    – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

    American freedom persisted for merely 71 years.

    Abraham Lincoln engaged in and presided over nullifying the Constitution and “fundamentally transforming” the United States through the crimes of high office as wholly unconstitutional malfeasance, violence, brutality, compulsion, duress and vicious warfare, ultimately, killing one million Americans.

    The U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, severely limits and restricts the power of Congress, while it provides maximal freedom to individuals.

    Congress is provided, in addition to debt and security, the power to tax ONLY for “general Welfare” (i.e. infrastructure) not specific, individual or particular welfare, and not charity or favor.

    Congress is provided the power to regulate ONLY the value of money, commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces.

    The 5th Amendment right to private property allows ONLY owners to “claim and exercise” dominion; the right to private property is absolute, or the right to private property does not exist.

    The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 established who may become a citizen of the United States.

    Citizens enjoy the freedom of speech and thought allowing them to form and hold opinions on every subject.

    The Constitution applies to undifferentiated people, citizens, individuals, candidates, officials, etc.

    Congress has no power to favor one group of citizens over another, or to compel opinions on any subject.

    Citizens enjoy the freedom to disagree with the Constitution and the freedom to emigrate.

    Every lasting act and effect of Lincoln was and remains unconstitutional, and is illegitimate to this day, with emphasis on the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

    “…amendments…as will not injure the constitution,…”

    ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

    – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

    The Supreme Court of 2022 decided that the Supreme Court of 1973 was erroneous and unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court of 2022 struck down and overturned the Supreme Court of 1973.

    The Supreme Court of 2022 must, similarly, decide that all of the acts and effects of Abraham Lincoln were and remain erroneous and unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court of 2022 must, similarly, strike down and overturn all of the erroneous and unconstitutional acts and effects of Abraham Lincoln.

Comments are closed.