I have no interest in or desire to engage in "proactive" violence (as opposed to self-defense, which is always permissible.)  Even if you can get through whatever keyholes you may have in terms of ethics or morals on such an act I am left with the inescapable conclusion that those who remain when you're done simply aren't worth what you spent (your life.)

However, if called upon to defend the status quo, whether it be the local sheriff, county, state or federal government I would refuse.  Why?  Because that too is not worth spending my life on.

Would I spend my life to protect a federal government that has refused to enforce 100+ year old anti-trust law and has allowed the medical industry to screw the population out of trillions of dollars over the last 20+ years, never mind Beelzebezos and Zuckerpig screwing the entire population via their data sales, H1bs, destroyed firms and offshoring?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a state or local government that has refused to enforce those very same laws, despite them being on the books here, and instead has incessantly raised taxes on the citizens to fund the rip-off practices of these "industries" that have as their best analog the (actual) mafia?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a local sheriff who is very interested in giving out traffic tickets and DUIs but can't be bothered to enforce those very same laws against local medical providers and hospitals?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect any of the myriad CEOs and other "mavens" that have stolen their wealth from the population at large by offshoring jobs, supporting illegal invaders, suppressing wages via H1b abuse or engaging in cross-subsidy games recognized as illegal 100+ years ago under that very same anti-trust law, or who run companies that admit to being able to "sway any political contest" through abuse of data or who collect and sell access to same and similar?  No.

Would I spend my life to defend any employee of a state government which "sues" a pharmaceutical firm for intentionally marketing opioids under false pretense?  Such a suit, if won, will be paid by the customers of the firm since they'll simply jack up the price!  The state could indict the executives and marketing folks for involuntary manslaughter but instead they choose to make the victims pay twice -- first with their health or life and then again in money!  No.

Would I spend my life to defend and protect any member of the media that have been complicit in all of the above?  Hell no.

The local Catholic Church -- and others I drive by -- have parking lots full of cars when it's time for mass.  Given that we now know with certainty, and in fact we did back in 2002 or thereabouts, that the clergy, bishops, cardinals and Rome knew damn well that pedophilia was essentially a "second occupation" for many priests -- well north of 10,000 of them in the US alone -- tell me why I would associate with or assist anyone who attends such mass or puts a single nickel in the plate?  I terminated my affiliation as soon as this was evident but nearly nobody else has.  Why are not these edifices gone, confiscated to pay redress to the victims and every one of those guilty either directly or by cover-up in prison?  Why has not this evil edifice, to be blunt, been destroyed?  Every one of the persons in those pews has been and currently is knowingly funding the literal rape of children for a period going on nearly two decades at this point!  Do you think I would spend my life to defend any of theirs?  They-will-burn-in-Hell no.

Would I spend my life to protect a county commission (ours) that hiked our property taxes 11% last year instead of enforcing that very same body of law -- when the reason for the hike is specifically stated to be the rapacious cost of health care both for county employees and inmates at the local lockup?  Double Hell no.

Never mind the millions of older Americans who have literally been forced out of their homes due to the property tax ramp game as a result of these scams.  My former home near Chicago has seen a clean doubling of property tax assessments since I sold and left.  Others I know have also seen an insane ramp; a 50% increase over the last 10 years in many areas is common.  What has been the increase in Social Security payments during that time?  An effective zero due to ZIRP.  So how does a senior on fixed income come up with that sort of increase?  

They can't.

I can name literally hundreds of similar instances.  The myriad CEOs of financial institutions from before the 2008 meltdown -- and since, in the case of Wells ****You -- who have presided over dozens if not hundreds of acts that had you or I stolen the same amount of money would have left us facing decades in prison yet none have gone to jail make me retch. Elon Musk didn't appear to have just misled people with his recent tweet on taking Tesla private; he now claims to have had alleged "discussions" about a buyout with the Saudis for roughly two years previous and he was buying stock in the meantime while in possession of that material inside information which, if those discussions actually happened and is not a lie constitutes insider trading.  This, if true, is a 20 year in prison felony.  The government tweets about busting people for this very offense quite frequently (including just recently a sitting US House member) yet Elon Musk just admitted to doing the same thing in an open letter on the corporate web page and... he's walking around DefCon free as a bird.  If you or I pulled that crap they would have arrested us and led us away in handcuffs right here, right now.

Why the **** would I spend my life defending any organization, person, state, local or federal authority who sit on their fat asses instead of getting out the handcuffs when a (very) rich SOB brazenly and publicly appears to admit to violating the same law they just got done busting a Congressman for?  They can all -- the FBI, SDNY and SEC -- go **** a duck as I will never risk spending my life to defend any of theirs given their willful and intentional refusal to act as required by law.

I'm aware of a murder that took place in a big city about two weeks ago.  I didn't know the victim but someone close to me did.  The killing took place on a freeway, late at night, in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country.  There are DOT cameras literally every few hundred feet in that town on those freeways (I've driven the specific road where it occurred) and yet despite shell casings being found in the vehicle where his body and stopped car was, not wrecked but parked in the right lane, which strongly implies that he stopped and then was shot from either inside or just outside the car (and the assailant then fled either on foot or in another vehicle) none of the "wonderful" city and state officials can manage to find anything related to what other vehicles or people were in the immediate vicinity at the time in question.  If you believe the cops actually give a **** about ordinary people and arresting assailants even when murder is involved -- given the density of video imaging in the immediate vicinity which essentially had to have captured that murder when it occurred and the escape of the shooter I have a bridge to sell you.  If that was a cop that had been shot there would have been a nationwide manhunt, including the FBI, within hours if not minutes.  Instead we get the cops jacking off for days instead of immediately viewing all the video from the immediate area and trying to find the person who committed the murder.  If you think, given this fact, that I'll spend my life to defend, rescue or protect any ****head-in-blue, ever, you're dumber than a box of rocks.

Here's reality: If I ever see any of these people -- federal, state, county or local officials, or others complicit in similar acts -- in a burning car on the side of the road I wouldn't even******on it.  I can personally guarantee that I would show them the same passive indifference to the ****ing they are taking through chance or some other person's nefarious act that they have shown to everyone else when the shoe was on the other foot over the last several decades.  Unlike when I am a captain of a vessel upon the water I have no legal duty to assist if I am able -- and thus I pledge here and now, in public, that I will not, ever, under any circumstance, assist and I certainly will not risk spending my life in such a pursuit.

Period.

This sad state of affairs in our nation is not stable yet the outrageous behavior -- and damage -- continues to build by the day and it's not the decent people of this nation that are causing it.  It's all the *******s who either willfully ignore the lawbreaking despite a legal duty to stop it or are actively participating in it.

Eventually some percentage of those who cannot find justice and have been personally hurt or even destroyed by these outrageous violations of the law, criminal felonies intentionally ignored by the government for decades despite the harm done to real people by them on a literal daily and continuing basis, will decide they've had enough of this crap and the willful, intentional indifference and blindness by government and corporate actors across this country.

Their decision to spend their life at that moment will be a coldly-calculated and pure act of revenge.

Such an act, or even millions of similar acts, when they occur -- and they will eventually occur due to the utter and complete refusal of our government to put a stop to any of this crap by the rich and powerful despite its illegality -- cannot be defended.

But such an act can be understood, and if those acts of revenge are directed at the people who committed the wrongs, and not wildly-incoherent violence harming those who either tried to help or had nothing to do with the abuses, I am no longer willing to condemn same.

Instead I will tip a glass filled with two fingers of a nice Scotch in quiet respect for those who have decided, quite-sanely, calmly and deliberately, that they simply have had enough and will endure those abuses no more.  The government at all levels could have before and can today decide to put a stop to this crap and yet while they prosecute a sitting House member for a very-legitimate crime others who do the same thing, or even engage in much worse offenses and screw the public out of trillions or even rape children are not only ignored they are treated by the media and lawmakers as cult heroes.

I will not excuse the indefensible -- but one does not have to excuse or condone an act to understand and have respect for it.

This is going to be a tough slog for many of you folks, but you need to do it.

I will also be using this article as a gauge; its popularity and circulation will directly guide my future decisions.

First, I want you to read this in its entirety, from a Priest.  This isn't really news to many people, myself included, but coming from someone with personal, inside experience you cannot discount or otherwise dismiss it.  It's real.

The lesson found in that missive isn't really on the Catholic Church; if you confine your thinking to it you're making a grave mistake.

No, it's "big data" in general, and it's why we cannot allow it under anything approaching the terms we've permitted thus far.

The article points out that during the process of "formation", that is, when one is seeking to be a priest, it is inherently part of the process for an exhaustive examination of every part of you to be undertaken and documented.  The Church has very good reasons for this, and they have obviously determined that it's not only necessary but "proper", and used properly it likely is.

The problem is that there are evil people everywhere, and once that data is amassed if they can get to it they both can and will use it -- improperly.

The usual refrain from the public is that "I have nothing to hide", so "who cares?"

That's missing the point; such data not only exposes what you've done but where you're vulnerable.

Read that article however many times you must for it to sink in.  If a priest -- or priest-to-be -- didn't have anything the evil people could use to force them to remain in line and silent, or even worse, to cover up for outrageously evil acts they would find some way to create it!  So if they figured out that your "kryptonite" rested in liking women, well, you'd be assigned to work with a group of young, attractive women.  If they figured out you might be a pedarest?  Girl's (or boys!) soccer coach!  And so on.

What you have in that article is documentation of the weaponization of information that stretches back decades, long before we had computers, big data, cheap disks and servers.  This was information divulged in confidence and written down on old-fashioned paper -- and then abused for nefarious, evil, heinous purpose.  It was used for the explicit creation of monsters so you can blackmail said monster to do as you wish.  That kids -- and adults -- get abused in the process is of no consequence to those undertaking this evil!

Spycraft, in the international sense, is mostly about compromising people.  Nobody is iron-clad strong all the time and in all areas.  Nobody.  The classic "spy movie" example is the cute, young woman sent in to seduce the man, frequently with a few drinks, hopefully getting access to whatever she desires by sleeping with him.  This is cliche because it's true, but prior to "big data" determining where the weakness was and how to exploit it either directly or by finding a way to blackmail you later on took quite a lot of work.  This meant that it was only undertaken to target a few, very-interesting people -- and the risk of getting caught while trying to both amass the information and abuse it was quite high too.

This sort of data collection, analysis and abuse no longer requires any work at all, it now applies to everyone, and under current law and regulation it is impossible to not only know what's been collected (everything), how it's been analyzed (in every possible way) and who has or does access it for what purpose.

This must be not just stopped but retroactively forced out into the open with full disclosure in each and every instance to each and every person, along with hard, death penalty level enforcement for future violations.

If we don't do that then you will continue to be targeted.

Just to repeat in case that last sentence didn't sink in: CONTINUE to be targeted.

You already have been targeted and abused and in fact are abused every single day.  For car insurance, homeowners insurance, rate of interest and terms on a credit card or other loan, in housing and employment.  If you ever become "interesting" to people in power (e.g. you want to run for office, even something as simple as a school board) then suddenly it gets far worse in that all of that previously-collected data will be analyzed and used to either discover something with which you can be blackmailed now or, if there isn't anything yet your weaknesses will be analyzed and you will be continually tested until you fail and create the means to blackmail you.

Now you know why "Just-US" Roberts upheld Obamacare.  You may not know what they (the medical industry, to be specific) got him with, but you can be assured they did.  There were rumors of irregularities in his and his wife's adoption of their kids; true or not, who knows.  Obama, same deal.  There were myriad rumors of him being interested in men; these days, so what?  But what if one or more them wasn't 18?  Was that it?  I have no damn clue but this much I'm sure of -- this is what is being done with that data and has been for a long time.

What I can assure you is that this sort of tactic is as old as spying and over the last couple of decades it has become available on a far "cheaper" basis to a whole host of people -- and now is available to be used by anyone of evil intent against virtually anyone in any position where compromising them is of value.

It must be assumed that every single sitting Congressperson, Supreme Court Justice, President (reasonably-recent past and present), Governors and most State legislators along with nearly all decision-making level individuals (such as Judges) at the State and Federal government levels are in fact under active blackmail threat right here, right now, every single day.  This likely also extends to many county, city and local officials.

Note that in the linked article one of the "defensive measures" the creeps used, along with their enablers, is to explicitly target priests they cannot seduce to violate their vows and intentionally go to confession before them, thereby sealing their ability to speak.  What do you think politicians and others in power do now with attorneys?  Same thing -- they go "hire" one and suddenly -- bang, can't talk because of attorney-client privilege.  If you can't seduce them (but they'll try that first -- and you can bet on that as that's a much more powerful tool) then find a means of stuffing a sock in their mouth via some privileged relationship.

There is utterly nobody who is safe from this.

Ever.

Nor can you be made safe from it.

Nobody is God, and nobody is Superman.

The only means to stop it is to make abuse of such information a capital felony and force into the open all who abuse it so they can be executed, making it your absolute civil right to know of all such data collection, distribution and sale along with all aggregations of same and the purpose for which it is done in every single case -- and to make concealment of the collection, sale, or purpose for which such data is used from you in any form proof of evil intent equivalent to any other capital offense.

Simply put anyone collecting and using said data must be forced, under penalty of capital felony conviction and death, to disclose each time said data is used, by whom, exactly how it is used, for what purpose and where the data was and is sent, with such being a positive duty for anyone holding same.

When you get an insurance quote, for example, the company must tell you not just that it used a "consumer report" (which they do) but exactly what data they obtained, from who they obtained it and the specifics of all the data they obtained, analyzed and how they did so to arrive at whatever result was obtained, in detail, sufficient for you to recreate in person their "scoring" and reach the same result.

In short that data must be yours -- your property and thus your right to know how, when, why and by whom it was used -- by virtue of being about and generated by your actions -- always.

It must be explicitly unlawful to collect, sell, collate or "work" this data for any purpose other than those explicitly disclosed and agreed to, in advance and all collectors and sellers of such data must be held equally responsible for any violation later on, including through their own negligence as if it was intentional conduct.

Violations must result in everyone involved being personally and criminally liable and upon conviction being executed, with any company involved being instantly dissolved.  No ifs, ands or buts.

No exceptions can be permitted other than for US Government actions aimed at foreign nationals who are not protected under US Law and yes, this includes government agencies that collect and abuse information now -- all of them.

This must happen now.  Period.

If it doesn't you can literally kiss our nation -- and anything approaching "freedom" -- goodbye.

I'm serious; it's time for our nation to undergo a divorce.

The "liberal enclaves" of NY, Oregon, California, Chicago and similar all claim to be the "bastions of our economy."  The problem is that they don't give a crap about how this nation was founded, why it was founded, or what the Constitution is -- or why.  When one of their politicians does something that's illegal and unconstitutional (e.g. DACA) they don't care but when a later politician tries to reverse it they find a black-robed dickhead who has no right to sit on anything but a toilet seat to order that the original illegal act be continued.  The same is true for the 2nd Amendment; they can't get the votes to actually repeal it so people like Cuomo try to put anyone who disagrees with them out of business.  To boycott would be fine except that this isn't a boycott of willing people; it's a felony (18 USC 242) as coercion under color of law or authority is involved and the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. When a leftist AG runs firearms to known international criminals running drugs it's ok, but if you are someone he doesn't like you go to prison.  When a sailor takes a photo of a submarine and never shares it with anyone he goes to prison for violating the law with regard to classified information but when a leftist has 30,000 emails, including thousands of classified ones on her server in violation of the same law and they get stolen by the Chinese due to her incompetence and law-breaking the very same federal law enforcement officials are too busy eating donuts or looking for fake Russian spies.  Meanwhile a real Chinese spy was employed by a sitting Senator -- Feinswine -- and she skates and the spy is allowed to "retire"!  Speaking of cops you lefties seem to have a problem with cops who can't shoot straight and those who just shoot anyone they want, then plant evidence.  Too bad all your lefty surveillance crap catches you once in a while -- not that any of you care since that jackass isn't in jail either!

To top it all off the NY Times, your "gray lady 2-bit *****", just hired an avowed racist with a multi-year public record of her hated of white people -- and cops.  When called on it the paper doubled down and claimed they knew of her record before they hired her.  Well now that tells me everything I need to know about both the NY Times and NY the State and City; you can all go **** yourselves blind and should a block-wide asteroid hit dead-center in Manhattan tomorrow I will tip a glass of Glengoyne 21 since God will have finally demonstrated that he actually exists.

I could literally fill up the disk on the server where this blog resides with a bullet-point list of your crooked crap but you don't give a **** -- right?

I don't give a flying **** if you're gay, straight, claim to be any of some four hundred genders or like sheep -- as long as the sheep consents. Oh, that consent thing applies to humans too, and that they be adults, both of which seem to be foreign concepts to a lot of leftists -- including a ****-ton of priests and essentially all of Hollyweird.  How many of those people have you lefties shielded from going to prison for butt****ing boys, to say nothing of the girls and women those jackasses have sexually assaulted or sold into slavery?  I literally can't count them all.

Then there's Portland, where the cops were ordered not to arrest a mob that was laying siege to a government building.  Why were they doing it?  Because that government agency was enforcing a law they didn't like.  They couldn't get it repealed or changed in Congress so instead they lay siege and got away with it.

So let's cut the crap eh?

I want a divorce and I think we need to discuss terms.

You see, those of us you hate -- we make most of your energy and food.  We make the chemicals that purify your water and treat your sewage.  We drive the trucks that bring all the cheap crap you want from Chinese slaver factories into your cities so Pajama Boy can play his "video game sports."  In short without us you're utterly ****ed, but without you we lose..... face****, twatter, goolag, crapple and the stock exchange.  Wow man, that would be bad.  Oh, and we have about 80% of the nation's landmass too.

I think we have the better negotiating position, to be frank.  Can you live without something to eat, clean water to drink, working sewage disposal, natural gas to heat your homes and businesses, electrical power and fuel for your vehicles -- to say nothing of the trucks bringing all that crap into your city (including all those nice hypo needles in San Francisco)?  Oh, and by the way eventually one of the salafists you love so much is going to cart a few kilos of carfentanyl into one of your towns (he can probably have it sent over by ePacket for pennies!) and figure out the rather basic mechanics of getting it into your water supply, at which point a half million or more of you are all going to die at once.  You did pay attention to the recent Toronto jackwad who's brother was caught with something on the order of fifty kilos of that crap, right?  He's in a drug-caused vegetative state (my best guess is an accidental own goal while trying to handle it without the rather serious clean-room lab style precautions necessary) and thus we can't exactly ask him what he really intended to do with that much but I can assure you of this -- he wasn't going to sell it to junkies, given that one grain of salt worth of that crap is enough to kill you.  Oh, incidentally, the original source was almost-certainly your most-favored "free-trade" Asian nation -- China.

I suggest that this divorce can be quite peaceable and it's not very hard to achieve.  We return to the Federalism we were contractually promised, and you agreed to be contractually bound to in 1789.  You want your shootings, corrupt cops, jackbooted mayors and insane salafists?  Have 'em.  You figure out how to tax enough to pay for it and how you're going to deal with all the **** -- both literal and political -- that come with it.  If one of the wonderful people you insist be allowed in poisons your entire city, you deal with it.

But we won't put up with any of that crap any more nor will we tolerate any attempt to force us to, and that includes paying for it.  Your unfunded mandates shoved down the throat of the states that don't want them won't be tolerated for one more second.  Nor will your willful refusal to honor to the letter the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, not to mention the Tenth.

I think it's time for those of us who have had enough of NY, Portland and San Francisco thinking that Federalism is some quaint notion to point out where the actual necessities they enjoy today come from -- and who makes it possible for them to have same.

Let's have peace -- but only through mutual respect and a cessation of not only your intentional and wanton violence but theft besides.  I propose repeal of the 17th Amendment, returning the Senate's election to the State Legislatures, as a good starting point and indication of good faith on both sides.

I suppose you can call this a request.

I suspect you'll refuse, and when, not if you do (likely by simple silence and further aggression toward those of us who disagree with you) I'm not going to be the one who starts shooting -- you've already got that distinction in your pick-a-mob for today, tomorrow and yesterday. Eventually, however, I suspect you'll find that the 80+% of the nation's landmass that disagrees with you will reach a point where they give no more of a **** than your mob-of-the-day does and then the time for politeness will have passed.

I hope I'm wrong about that, by the way -- but given how corrupt you are, and how you think you can just take whatever you want, whenever you want -- I doubt it.

Can you stop the caterwauling already?

Look folks, just cut the crap.  Seriously.  There's nothing legitimate about SCOTUS at the present time.  Nothing.

And no, neither left or right did that to the SCOTUS -- not Bush, not Obama, not Clinton and certainly not Trump.  The SCOTUS did that to itself, and we the people then ratified it -- and it happened a long time ago.

To make the example and underline the point I shall go back to the root of the problem we have today with the Judiciary, with the SCOTUS and with the Federal Government generally: The 17th Amendment, proposed on 5/12/1912 and ratified less than a year later on 4/8/1913.

Following that came Wickard .v. Filburn, 317 US 111, decided in 1942.  That decision was unanimous.

I bring this up because I was sent the following on Kavanaugh, which is a decision he filed a dissent on related to Obamacare, known as Seven-Sky .v. Holder.

Kavanaugh has been "credited" with giving Roberts the idea that he could "recast" Obamacare as a tax, and by doing so providing him the means to "save" Obamacare.  Nonsense.  Kavanaugh argued in his dissent that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited the court from granting relief and never reached the merits at all.

This is important because, if you remember, Roberts didn't just recast the "penalty" (impermissible) as a tax -- he recast it as a Direct Tax, which is constitutionally impermissible on its face and has been since the founding of the nation except on a capitated basis.

In other words it is Constitutional to lay a $10 per-person direct tax -- but you can't condition or vary it.

There were multiple attempts to lay an income tax and every one was struck down as a violation of the Constitution, leading to the 16th Amendment, which permitted same.  But the 16th Amendment only authorized taxes on income; it did not override the general prohibition on non-capitated direct taxes in the Constitution.

That is, Roberts re-wrote an unconstitutional "penalty" into an Unconstitutional Tax -- a black letter unconstitutional tax that was unconstitutional in 1789 and remains so today -- and yet nobody has done a damned thing about it.

This is, I remind you, despite the Congressional Record from the time of the crafting of the PPACA containing evidence that Congress knew they couldn't define the "penalty" to be a tax as they knew that was a facially-unconstitutional direct tax so they intentionally worded it as a penalty to try to get around that infirmity!

I bring all this up, especially the elements of Wickard .v. Filburn, because if you read the above linked opinion -- not Kavanaugh's dissent but the opinion that was issued -- you will in fact find myriad references to Filburn as controlling precedent.

But Wickard .v. Filburn was nothing less than a complete re-write of the Constitution so as to remove the separation of power between the Federal Government and the States!

The decision held that a farmer who grew a crop for his own internal consumption -- that of his family and his animals on said farm, never entering one grain of same into commerce, was nonetheless subject to federal regulation on how much of said crop he could grow or whether he could grow it at all.

The claim was that because his act of growing same would mean he wouldn't need to buy as much, or none at all, of the same product or something that provided the same benefit (e.g. was food and thus sustained life) that affected interstate commerce.

By this decision the Supreme Court completely tore up the entire Constitution; it rendered literally no subject matter beyond federal regulation.  You can, under this premise, have a federal law passed making it illegal for you to have a toilet in your house with the intended effect of forcing you to go down the street and pay $1 to take a crap each time.  Why?  Because if you have a toilet you will not need to use the public one at $1 for each use as much, or even at all.  Since the pipe (for the water!) might travel in interstate commerce this affects same, and thus federal regulation attaches.

So given that precedent, and that the correct and immediate response to that decision was not taken by the States (specifically, to immediately secede and call up their National Guard units to enforce same until and unless the Constitution was restored as the contract with the States had been breached egregiously and without any possibility of recovery through peaceful means) what do you think was going to happen with Obamacare?

Here lies the problem with Kavanaugh -- and all the rest of these black-robed bastards: They know good and ******n well the Constitution prohibits nearly everything in Federal Law today and they don't give a ****.

More to the point neither do you so long as the violations are to your liking!  Nowhere is the Federal Government empowered to regulate public schools.  There is no Federal Constitutional right to an education -- of any sort.  Yet there is title after title bearing on exactly this, forcing expense down the states' throats.  The States have constitutional guarantees at the state level for a public educational system but nothing allows federal reach into same.

THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION YET IT ROUTINELY HAS DONE EXACTLY THAT.

The Founders were very specific on creation of a weak federal government and strong states.  They did it for the specific reason that they fully expected and anticipated exactly the sort of schism between the people we have today.  They expected and designed the federalist system so that 13 (now 50) political laboratories would be empowered to each come up with their own set of rules, regulations, taxes and benefits.

The Federal Government's role was to (1) prevent invasion whether by stealth or force (gee, they're doing that today, right?), (2) to prevent states from trying to rig the outcome of their political experiments by laying what amount to tariffs on goods and services crossing state lines and (3) to protect against infringement of individual rights (all of which pre-exist government and are not granted by same) such as the right to speak, the right to freedom of worship, the right to self-defense (thus the Second Amendment) and the various collection of due process rights such as the right to a trial by jury, to confront one's accuser and to be free from searches and seizures except upon issuance of a warrant containing the specifics of probable cause, and strictly limiting what was to be searched for, and where.

To the extent a state wished to enact a tax and spending program that issued welfare they could.  But they couldn't compel any other state to go along with it or pay for it as absolute control of the upper house -- the Senate -- rested in STATE LEGISLATURES.  In other words the people had their proportional representation (in the US House) and the State Legislatures had theirs (in the Senate.)

To pass a federal law, say much less a Constitutional Amendment, you needed concurrence of both.

The 17th Amendment ended that.  The State Legislatures were permanently stripped of the foundation of their power at the Federal Level -- the requirement that they concur through the Senate before any Federal Law could be passed.

Further, let me point out that at the time of Wickard, and indeed continually both before and since, the US Congress could have constrained the power of the US Supreme Court.  Congress has the power to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court (and over which it has appellate jurisdiction), and has (Article I, Sec 8)

But the Constitution also says this in Article 3 Section 2 about Congressional Regulation of the Supremes:

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress can control the boundaries of any appeal, for instance.  And while Congress cannot prevent any case in which Original Jurisdiction rests these are a tiny, in fact vanishingly small, percentage of the whole of what the Supreme Court hears.

But it hasn't.

So what about Kavanaugh personally?  Well, he's opined that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.  He's right -- they are and so are all other federal gun laws except those bearing on interstate commerce.  Laws banning or regulating, including licensing or permitting, the "keeping and bearing" of arms are black-letter unconstitutional.  Period.

But he's also opined that the President is immune from indictment.  Uh, no.  That's not in the Constitution; I know how he reaches that viewpoint but it simply isn't in the enumerated powers and with good reason.  A primary principle of statutory and Constitutional construction is that words that are present mean what they say and those that are omitted cannot be added in; the writers are presumed to have omitted the words you might imagine you'd like to see on purpose.  Indeed the founding principle of this nation is that all are created equal.  One cannot be equal if one is immune from the legal strictures that apply to anyone else as a consequence of being elected or appointed to a political office.  Finally the Constitution is a negative document not just by inference but by actual word in the 10th Amendment; that which is not specifically delegated as a power does not exist at the federal level -- including for federal office holders!

Does Kavanaugh have an excellent intellectual background and ability to reason?  Absolutely.  But is that the test?  It ought not be yet the usual pablum of "obeying the written Constitution" was trotted out by him at the lectern (it is not a podium folks -- learn the difference Mr. President!  You stand on a podium, and you speak behind a lectern!) -- which is an utterly common yet blatant and outrageous lie uttered by all Supreme Court nominees.

When you wind it all up what you have here is a nominated man who has the very same idea of making the Constitution read the way he wants it to that Sotomayer and Kagen have -- along with others before them and plenty of robe-wearers right now.  Nor can you point to Scalia, who once again "found" things that simply never existed.  They simply have a different idea of how they want the Constitution to read.

Yes, it is a fact that actually obeying the dictates of the Constitution means that a huge percentage of the alleged laws on the books -- like 80% of them or more -- simply go "poof" like a fart in a Church.  That's how it's supposed to work.  Nearly the entire federal gun law set, for example, is unconstitutional.  Ditto for the "scheduling" of drugs; Congress knew damn well they had to pass an amendment to ban alcohol.  Alcohol is a drug, and a drug of abuse.  Well?

Then there's Roe.  If you haven't read the actual opinion you should; it has a quite-full exposition on the history of abortion included in it.  It's an extraordinarily well documented piece of judicial reasoning, whether you agree with the conclusion (and its limitations; there was no blanket right to abortion contained in the opinion) or not.  But Roe, in the end, turns on whether you have an individual right to privacy, which the justices found.  Well, if you do and it vests in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, how come it hasn't been applied to anything else?  Why can a private entity collect all manner of private data and sell it to anyone who they want including the government, without a warrant?  Why can the government use a DNA database without a warrant?  Why can the government (and it does, by the way, in many if not all states by now) collect DNA from all newborn children and catalog that?

In short how do you have a constitutional right to privacy if you can't actually enforce it anywhere except in the abortion doctor's office?

Cut the bull**** folks.  Those screaming on both sides of the aisle are simply demanding that the government put its boot on your neck as they want it to, and not as the other side wants.

NOBODY is arguing for a return to the boundaries of the Constitution, never mind that pesky 17th Amendment we can't get rid of without a revolution.

With that said I predict Kavanaugh will be confirmed -- before the election.

So says Judge Nap

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

That's correct, but that doesn't prevent Trump from stopping an invasion without implicating said due process rights.

And let's be clear: Those coming here are not "immigrants"; they're invaders.

An "immigrant" presents themselves at a legal border crossing, explains their intentions, and requests a decision on entry, which they abide.

An invader claims they need no authorization nor will they abide the decisions of officials; they claim a right (which they do not have) to take what they want.

How do you stop invaders?

Order the border sealed, except at legal crossing points which are not US territory until you are past them, enforced by the military.

The Constitution not only authorizes this action it REQUIRES said action (Article V Section 4):

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It is not an option or choice for the federal government to do this.

IT IS A DUTY FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PREVENT THE INVASION OF ANY STATE BY FOREIGN NATIONALS.  PERIOD.

No entry except through lawful means at a legal border crossing, period.

And yes, period means period.  It means if necessary you shoot those who, after clear warning (which a fence plus a pointed gun certainly is, and admits no language barrier!) choose to attempt to proceed.

There is no due process right implicated in preventing an invasion.

A person coming here for the pure reason of accessing someone else's economic wealth is in fact invading for the purpose of plunder.  War is, in virtually every case, about plunder.  The taking of territory is plunder.  The taking of people (e.g. rape, assault, murder, etc) is plunder.  The theft of things (e.g. oil, cars, money, etc) is plunder.

An invader comes for the specific purpose of plunder.  Millennia of international law recognizes the right of nations to a border, to stop those who come for the purpose of plunder, and to enforce that prohibition by any means necessary including physically stopping said person by causing them to cease to be alive.

Attempt to proceed across a marked border when there are rifle barrels pointed at you is a clear declaration of your intent to invade. 

The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make clear that plunder will not be tolerated and it will be stopped.  There is no due process right for someone who is in the process of invading another nation.  Such an individual has in fact declared war on your nation and intends plunder upon it.

We both can, should and indeed must stop that.  A wall, along with sufficient sensors to detect attempted breaches whether over or below, may be part of the answer but it must include, in any event, fair notice that attempts to plunder our nation will be repelled before the invader sets foot on our soil and must be enforced.