The President and the Snowflakes

The President and the Snowflakes

4-17-2018

(PDF Version)

The problem with defining what the President can and cannot do is simply that the limitation of a President’s authorities is not always so clear-cut and have long been mired in controversy as to where the line of his authority ends. Generally speaking, the powers of the President exist on a continuum, that continuum being that when he operates unilaterally, without Congressional approval, or against the wishes of Congress entirely (except where purely executive duties and functions are concerned, or where the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief as regards his war powers are concerned[1]), his actions are more likely to be deemed Unconstitutional[2]. On the other hand, when the President operates pursuant to his enumerated powers and duties as outlined in the Constitution, and operates pursuant to Congressional approval, he operates most lawfully and Constitutionally[3].

I think the problem lies at the heart of the fact that most individuals simply don’t really know what the functions of the President of the United States truly are. The President of the United States is not a monarch; he is not a dictator or a ruler. He is not all powerful nor immune to criminal prosecution nor civil suits, even while in office.[4] The President is to be a representative of the nation as a whole, as well as represent the nation in foreign affairs and diplomacy. As per the Constitution, his duties are to “faithfully execute the nation’s laws,” be Commander- in- Chief of the nation’s armed forces, represent the nation in foreign affairs, and sign and ratify treaties with foreign nations (pursuant to Senatorial approval)[5].

What’s interesting to me is all the fuss over the president when I think, all in all, the Executive Branch has much less authority than the other branches. I am of the belief that most of the real power lies with the Legislative, or Congress. But the unique and ingenious aspect of the American Federal government is that each branch was designed to “check” the power of the other branches in various ways, so that no one branch truly becomes all that powerful. As James Madison said over two centuries ago, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”[6] The president can’t just get up and say, for instance, “There shall be no more abortions in this land!” and have it actually be effective[7], nor can he build his “wall” to keep out illegal immigrants without Congressionally approved funds[8]. And despite what many think, his ability to unilaterally influence the economy is extremely limited.

With the “advice and consent of the Senate” he may nominate justices to sit on the Supreme Court, but the Senate must approve. He may also propose legislation to Congress[9]. In either of these scenarios, however, Congress (or the Senate where approval of Supreme Court nominees is concerned) may just simply choose to ignore the president[10].

A lot of people are looking to Trump to appoint “pro-life” nominees to the Supreme Court, thinking it will “stop abortion” or at least halt abortions or make them less prevalent and harder to obtain. And Trump nominated (and the Senate approved) Neil Gorsuch, a “conservative” justice who has even authored a book speaking out against euthanasia,[11] to the Court. However, presidential power as regards the judiciary ends at the nomination of justices. Even if the Senate approves, the tenure of a Supreme Court justice (and all Article III judges in the Federal scheme) is for life, and as per the mandates of the United States Constitution, neither can the justices’ pay be reduced[12]. If a Supreme Court justice should change his views over time, or even abandon the political party that nominated him, there’s nothing the president can do.[13] Supreme Court justices may also be impeached for “cause,” but only once has this ever happened in United States history by way of the impeachment of Samuel Chase in the 19th century.[14]

Also, what I’d imagine the majority of the American public and “pro-lifers” who think the entire fate of the nation depends on which individual is nominated to hold the office of the Presidency do not realize is that Congress has the Constitutionally-mandated authority to control the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This means that, in theory at least, it is possible (even if not entirely probable under the current tides of American politics) that Congress may pass legislation- even by overriding a presidential veto- to effectively strip the Supreme Court (and any other lower level federal circuit or district court with appellate jurisdiction) of jurisdiction to even so much as be able to hear any case-or controversies that come before it via a petition for certiorari regarding abortion, gun rights, religion, homosexuality, immigration, etc… Known as “jurisdiction stripping[15]” this power bestowed upon Congress has long been seen even among “conservatives” as a necessary check upon the power of the Supreme Court[16].

But I think the caveat here also to be noted is that who holds the office of presidency is no joke. In times of martial law, war and political upheaval, where the civilian courts no longer operate and the writ of habeas corpus as well may be suspended and, as Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s Armed Forces (retaining the ability also to call forth the state militias and command them) and highest Federal law enforcement officer, presidential power is at its highest point. He can establish Article II military tribunals, appoint temporary justices to the Supreme Court while Congress is not in session[17] and pursue many other functions that, in times of peace and plenty, would normally be forbidden to him to do without Congressional approval. Of course, such power is not absolute, as Congress still retains jurisdiction as regards to war and trying detainees, but especially since 9/11, and the passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force[18], if war ever actually makes its way to American soil, who holds the position of Commander-in-Chief is a critical issue. Looking back throughout the ages even to the days of Washington and Lincoln, the authorities of the Executive and Legislative branches seem to constantly bump into each other, sometimes in a cooperative relationship, sometimes an antagonistic one[19].

As was stated over a century ago in Moyer v. Peabody (1909),

…Public danger warrants the substitution of executive for judicial process, and the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what the executive honestly deems the necessities of a critical moment…the plaintiff's position is that he has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. But it is familiar that what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation.[20]

In recent decades it seems that Congress has consistently delegated away more authority to the Executive Branch than what was seen in earlier generations, especially when one considers the fact that the United States hasn’t actually been at “war” since World War II (the last time Congress officially declared war, as the following “wars” were initiated by Executive action),[21] and the “war on terror” has continued to transform the political landscape for nearly two decades now.

Presidents may issue executive orders and proclamations. Presidents since the very beginning, even since the days of George Washington have done this, though the constitutionality and legality of these proclamations and executive orders varies. Depending upon the exact exigency and nature of the circumstances, and whether or not Congressional approval has been obtained, they may or may not be Constitutional or have the full force of law at the Federal level.[22]

There’s been much talk over the recent Syrian airstrikes and all Trump’s latest actions. To be sure, my expertise as far as military strategy goes is a flatline zero, so I won’t sit in judgement on such actions or the necessity of them, but I do think, however, that America is the equivalent of a spoiled and bratty child, believing that war, strife, famine and hardship is something that only happens in some far-away place only to be told in a newspaper somewhere. War is something that happens to “them,” not “us.” Since war has not actually been fought on American soil (in the actual states) since the Civil War, I think sometimes Americans come to believe that it could never happen to us.

So while we continue on with our spoiled ways, politics, the nation’s armed forces, public schools, institutions of marriage and high courts throughout the land must bow to the ways of political correctness over common sense, because being concerned with promoting “fairness,” “equality” and being sure not to offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings by means of saying that “discriminating” legislation is Constitutionally permissible[23] is obviously more important than the preservation of civilization and the stability and prosperity of our nation.

But I think perhaps, in time, we’ll see as a nation that we are not so immune to war or the hardships that true political upheaval brings. And perhaps when that day comes, it will put an end to feminism, excessive and overbroad civil rights legislation and the snowflake generation.

___________________________________________________________________________

[1] Congress must declare war, but since the beginning since the Presidency of Washington, presidents have taken military action without Congressional approval or declarations of war. However, Congress may prohibit or require cessation of military action. (See also War Powers Act 50 U.S.C. Sect. 1541) If Congress should demand cessation of military action, the President must comply or else be in dereliction of his oath and duty to “faithfully execute the nation’s laws” under the Constitution. See also endnote 3 discussion, infra.; See also e Daniel E. Hall & John P. Feldmeier, Constitutional Law: Governmental Powers and Individual Freedoms, Second Edition (Pearson, 2012) for reference.

[2] See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952), wherein The Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, against the actions of then-President Truman for his order for the Secretary of Commerce to take control of most of the nation’s steel mills. Truman did this by way of Executive Order (10340), Congress made no response to the order to either approve or disapprove. Writing for the majority, Justice Black concluded, “In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws…and the vetoing of laws…” In a concurring opinion, Justice Jackson conceded that, “…When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain…”; See also Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

[3] See Section II of the United States Constitution for the powers vested in the Executive Branch https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii#top Unlike the enumerated powers of Congress which are specific and defined, Presidential powers are often the subject of intense debate and long have been since the formation of the Constitution (see also Article I of the United States Constitution for the powers of the Legislative Branch https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i) Whether or not there exists inherent powers that the President possesses is controversial among Constitutional scholars.

[4] See United States v. Burr, F. Cas. 30 (C.C.D.Va. 1807); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 904 (1974); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services Administration, 433 U.S. 425 (1977); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Jones v. Clinton, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). While presidents have complete immunity and cannot be sued for actions committed in the performance of their duties, presidents are not shielded from civil suit in regards to actions unrelated to their duties and the Supreme Court has ruled that they may even be sued while in office (See Jones v. Clinton, supra) so long as it does not interfere with important presidential duties. While presidents, former presidents and lower executive officials enjoy privileges, some executive privilege may be overcome by the need for specific criminal evidence in a criminal case (See United States v. Nixon, Supra).

[5] See The President’s Job According to the Constitution https://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/assets/Education%20and%20Public%20Programs/Education/middle%20school%20programs/The%20Presidents%20Job%20According%20to%20the%20Constitution.pdf from the JFK library for a simple, clear-cut outline in plain English of the President’s duties and obligations under the Constitution.

[6] See The Federalist No. 47 (1788)

[7] When effective, and especially when approved by Congress, Executive Orders or Proclamations can have the effect of statutes. However, Presidential Executive Orders or Proclamations, if lawful, are only done to enforce his lawful authority, of which most of the main “issues” revolving around today’s politics do not fit into. See Youngstown, supra, endnote 2 discussion that “…the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

[8] See ongoing conflict about Trump’s border wall https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/trump-won-a-judges-permission-to-build-a-border-wall-with-mexico-now-he-just-needs-the-money.html

[9] See endnotes and discussion 2, 3, and 5, supra.

[10] This has happened many times over in United States history. The most recent example being the nomination of Merrick Garland by Barack Obama, whom Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing for before Obama left office. Subsequently, Donald Trump successfully nominated Neil Gorsuch in place of Obama’s nomination. It has long been the way of Presidents to nominate justices for the Court before leaving office, that way the President’s party may still hold the majority of political power on the Court. Also common, at times, is the retirement of justices before their party leaves office that way younger justices of the same political party may be nominated by the President to take their place.

[11] See, for instance, Gorsuch’s The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (New Forum Books, 2009). The author of this article has not read this book, but is merely aware of its existence.

[12] See discussion, infra, endnote 13.

[13] For a comical historical reference, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, after appointing former Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Court, remarked that he was “The biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made!” and according to former President Harry S. Truman, “Whenever you put a man on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend.”

[14] For more about Samuel Chase, See https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_chase

[15] See, for instance, Congress’s Power Over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of ‘Klein’ from the Homeland Security Digital Library https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=804643 for a report on the issue. Congress has power over “inferior” Federal courts, which are established and may be abolished by Congress at will, and Congress may also, under Article III’s “Exceptions Clause” prohibit the Supreme Court from hearing certain classes of cases that come before it, even where legitimate “cases” or “controversies” of important Constitutional concern are at stake. Congress may not, however, abolish the Supreme Court as it is established by the Constitution. See also U.S. Const. Article III, Sec. I “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.” See also Ex parte McCardle 74 US 506 (1869); United States v. Klein 80 U.S. 128 (1871)

[16] Even current Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court has a history dating back to his days as a lawyer during the Reagan Administration in support of court-stripping measures https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/judge-roberts-and-court-stripping and the late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, famously known for leading the opposition against the Equal Rights Amendment, was also a proponent of jurisdiction stripping, (See Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction by Phyllis Schlafly (2006) http://eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html ) though I suspect in the latter case with conservatives it has been over the decades an issue of getting legislation passed that is not subject to judicial review.

[17] Known as “recess appointments,” such Presidential power is temporary, and the justices only remain until Congress convenes the next session, unless the Senate approves of the appointee(s).

[18] See endnote 19 and discussion, infra.

[19] Not an entirely antagonistic relationship in our nation’s history, but the lines between the Executive and Legislative authorities in times of war have seemed to bump into each other. Several presidents have made use of state militias, especially during the Civil Rights Era to quell domestic disturbances and have done so under their legitimate War Powers. Also, presidents such as Abraham Lincoln have issued decrees to suspend habeas corpus in times of war, without running into opposition from Congress. See Martial Law and Constitutional Limitations https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/12-martial-law-and-constitutional-limitations.html

[20] 212 U.S. 78

[21] See Official Declarations of War by Congress from the U.S. Senate’s website: https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm

[22] See Executive Orders 101 from the National Constitution Center: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

[23] Up until the late 1980s, sex-based discrimination was held to a lesser standard of judicial review generally referred to as “semi-suspect,” based on a three-pronged scale the Court has long used when weighing whether or not a discriminating statute, law or ordinance can be upheld as Constitutionally permissible on account of it serving a compelling and legitimate state or governmental interest. However, in the modern-era, sex-based discrimination has been wholly and entirely eliminated and taken to its upmost extreme, now being held to a “strict scrutiny” standard that was once solely reserved for race-based discrimination cases as can be seen in particular since the rulings in cases such as Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v Hodges 576 U.S._(2015) declaring that states cannot Constitutionally deny to same-sex couples the legal right to marry the same as heterosexual couples. Sex-based discriminations in the United States were never always as prevalent, at least in public life, as is commonly propagated by the media today, yet the Supreme Court and local and state laws still upheld certain discriminating legislation on the basis of sex or legitimacy as serving a legitimate function in the preservation of civilization and ordering of society and family relationships.

Perhaps the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the majority and dissenting opinions produced in the case of Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309, 334, 798 NE2d 941, 963 (2003) can shed light on exactly why certain sex-based discriminations are necessary to society. This case made Massachusetts the first state to ever legalize “gay marriage” in United States history. The majority opinion of the court held that

“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples...The department has offered purported justifications for the civil marriage restriction that are starkly at odds with the comprehensive network of vigorous, gender-neutral laws promoting stable families and the best interests of children. It has failed to identify any relevant characteristic that would justify shutting the door to civil marriage to a person who wishes to marry someone of the same sex…”

Indeed, what argument can be made except that if offends someone’s sensibilities or personal religious beliefs? Without defining marriage in sexually distinctive ways being about the provision and protection of women and children so that children can be decently reared and stable families- true stable families- can be formed no case can be made. Indeed, the “Commonwealth” have no case. If not for the aforementioned purpose, then what purpose does marriage serve? As for the dissenting view,

“…Because a conceivable rational basis exists upon which the Legislature could conclude that the marriage statute furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children, it is a valid exercise of the State’s police power…”

But, in today’s world, does it matter who raises the children, who one chooses to have sex with or even how many partners they have or how “blended” their families are? Conceivably, to society today, it assuredly does not even remotely matter anymore…

Advertisements

Marijuana

Rights. The great concern of American civilization. On the federal level- and to the extent to which the Fourteenth Amendment has been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states[i]- rights are derived from the United States Constitution. The rights and powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are left to the states. The states thus wield police power, but only up to the point that they begin to encroach upon the civil and individual rights of the people beyond what is deemed socially or Constitutionally acceptable. The powers not delegated to the Federal government nor reserved to the states, are accordingly part of the natural and inalienable rights of the people, the likes of which no government may regulate[ii].

On the Right and on the Left, conspiracy theories do abound. The Right wishes everyone to believe that those in the government are not “one of us” and are constantly attempting to step on everyone’s Constitutional Rights, while the Left oftentimes wishes to push “civil rights” above and beyond what the Framers of our Constitution had ever intended, and beyond all traditional logic and reason. Everybody has their own “right” to live how they wish, no matter the social cost their lifestyle choices might ultimately entail. Yet again on the Right, they wish there to be virtually no government, nor protection of individual civil liberties, thereby leaving the common people to their own fate, giving free reign to big corporations to step on everyone’s rights.

One of the primary tenets of the American Constitution is that the government derives its consent from the governed[iii]. The infamous lines of our Constitution are “We the People.” Who are these people? If you listen to some who advocate for excessively liberal “civil rights” or “natural rights[iv],” “The People” the Constitution refers to would be anyone and everyone who comes into contact with our government or who sets foot on our soil, even those who do not have a sufficient establishment with this land or government nor formed the social contract[v] to abide by its laws, receive all of the rights and benefits of citizenship, nor the responsibilities thereof.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights, which extend the protections of the Constitution to The People against infringements of specific inalienable rights by their government. As Justice William Rehnquist said in 1990[vi],

… “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to ‘the people.’ While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community…

The law is not a static thing, but rather a living language. It changes from generation to generation based upon the times, geographic boundaries and the ways, lifestyle, needs, and overall culture of the people. It reflects a people’s values, beliefs and morals. As well, there seems to always be a lag between the time a specific behavior or value becomes socially acceptable, and between the point where it becomes de-criminalized. At issue in this posting is marijuana, which state by state has been de-criminalizing not only for medicinal purposes but also for recreational ones as well[vii].

The main problem with decriminalizing any behavior is that it normalizes it. It sends the message that this is what “we, the people” want and what we believe in. It means that such behavior is generally approved of. The issue is the same, as well, concerning the issue of homosexuality. Legalizing it means everyone must accept it as a normal and mainstream way of life. Where once homosexuals stayed “in the closet” in regards to their activity, every attempt was made to pass off illegitimate children as legitimate, nobody spoke about divorce, and the pot-smokers, dopers and druggies were part of the lower ranks of society- the “undesirables” who no socially respectable person would be caught dead being associated with, such ways of life are now mainstream and not only socially acceptable (indeed, normal), but also legally sanctioned as well.

What legalizing any activity of the sort virtually says is this, that …We, The People, accept and believe in such a practice. Everyone does it[viii], or at least knows someone who does it. And if you don’t do it then you, my friend, are the one with the problem. You are the anomaly, and furthermore a bigot who should be subject to social ostracism for your archaic and prejudiced beliefs for daring to say anything against it or say anything about the way anyone else chooses to live their life.

But what if its not about it being “socially acceptable” or for recreational purposes, but only medicinal ones? Should this be legalized? What should the reach of the government be in such a thing? Furthermore, who- the states or the Federal Government- has the jurisdiction over it? Does it have medicinal benefits and drawbacks? Is it “healthy” or “dangerous?[ix]” Is there long-term consequences? And don’t more people die from alcohol-related deaths (which is legal) than marijuana? There’s no safer drug, surely?

As to answer the latter, should it be allowed for medicinal purposes? I’d say there are undoubtedly many times in life in which an individual is in need of a doctor, or in need of medication. Alcohol and other mind-altering drugs have likewise been an integral part of all human civilizations throughout history. Nothing comes without risks in this life and it has long been established caselaw that an individual has the right to refuse or accept medical treatment even if it would lead to that individual’s disability or death[x]. Such a thing extends into the bounds of the natural and inalienable rights of the people of our nation that the government may not compel or deny medical treatment upon the individual citizen unless compelling circumstances demand it, and where the person has likewise been given due process of law (and perhaps even an Eighth Amendment case against cruel or unusual punishment could be made here as well). The society, and likewise the people, draw the boundary lines of how far government may regulate and what is- or is not- acceptable behavior.

The fact of the matter is that there are no long-term controlled clinical studies as regards the effects of marijuana (for obvious legal and ethical reasons). Deciding whether or not to take medication is the right and responsibility of the individual. All drugs are regulated with their known or potential side-effects listed. The choice belongs to the individual who is in legal possession of such drugs. But if anyone among us truly believes that the push to legalize marijuana stems from some potential magical medicinal properties that it either potentially or realistically possesses then that individual deludes himself. The risks and benefits associated with marijuana are merely footnotes in the case for legalization.

As to the issue of who has the power to regulated marijuana? Well, the answer (like most in issues in the legal realm), is not so clear-cut. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, in part, that

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding[xi].

Amendment X of the United States Constitution likewise reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people[xii].

The Federal Government only has those powers which are specifically granted to it by the United States Constitution, even though in recent decades the Federal Government’s power has grown exponentially. The power of Congress to make laws regarding interstate commerce, to establish lower-level Federal Courts and likewise abolish them at will (these are the circuit courts of appeal under the Supreme Court, which is established by the Constitution and cannot be abolished by Congress), create administrative agencies to carry out the functions of Congress, and delegate certain powers to such administrations (as well as delegate certain powers to the Executive Branch, ie…the President), and make all laws which are deemed “necessary and proper” in order for Congress to carry out its objectives[xiii].

Also realize that, as the power of government increases and the Federal Government, in particular, becomes more powerful, that most laws are crafted and enforced by administrative agencies. These agencies are delegated the power by Congress to, in simplistic terms, do all the legwork for Congress in researching and implementing certain laws. Also, Executive Branch officers such as the Attorney General have the authority in times of exigent circumstances to enact laws for the welfare of the people, such as temporarily criminalizing new strands of dangerous drugs that are created and pose an imminent hazard to public health and safety. The more the people look to the government to provide for their every need, the more bureaucratic agencies are created to oversee these welfare programs and the more regulation that is needed; likewise the more agencies are created to handle these issues. Rarely has the Supreme Court struck down such delegation of authority as unlawful or Unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine[xiv].

But why does the government regulate marijuana or any other drug? Not all administrative agencies are inherently harmful or a symptom of Federal overreach. Some agencies, such as the FBI, the DEA, the FDA and the Department of Homeland Security were created by Congress out of necessity to address legitimate law enforcement or public health needs. In earlier generations laws had to be enacted in response to public health crises to regulate, as well as criminalize, specific drugs as many individuals (including infant children) had been severely harmed and even killed by medications and “miracle” potions that anyone could cook up in their basement and sell.

In the case of illegal drugs, many are transported across international and interstate borders, severely disrupting the economy and posing a threat to the safety and functioning of communities, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of Congress to pass all necessary and proper laws regarding their regulation. Even in regards to food or drugs grown at home for personal use, or that do not themselves actually cross interstate borders but are purely intrastate in nature, Congress still has a legitimate interest in regulating their sale, distribution, consumption and usage. The pothead declares that “it’s only because they can’t tax it!” or that “I’m in the privacy of my own home, I’m not actually hurting anybody.” The legal scholar and the critical thinker, however, sees the larger issues implicated. The Supreme Court, likewise, has also tackled Congress’ authority in the arena of marijuana and other similar “private” activities. Justice Robert H. Jackson, delivering the opinion of the Court in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), declared

…But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’[xv]

Likewise, in the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court tackled the marijuana issue directly where the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is concerned:

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial,’ in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate marked in that commodity…The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety… Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce…among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment…[xvi]

Of greater importance is that Federal law must reign supreme over state or local law and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. This was one of the primary issues concerning the Articles of Confederation, in that the states had power over the Federal Government, causing significant problems, as well as many disputes among the several states. Such a system proved unworkable in only a short amount of time[xvii].

The Constitution was created, in part, to promote uniformity of law where significant interstate, national or international issues were concerned. Where federal and state law conflict, federal law reigns supreme under the Supremacy Clause. This is known as Federal Preemption, and it occurs when:

…1) Congress expressly states that it intends to preempt state regulation; 2) When a state law is inconsistent with federal law, even though no express preemption statement has been made by Congress; and 3) When Congress has enacted a legislative scheme that comprehensively regulates a field[xviii].

In conclusion, though Congress cannot abridge the police powers of the state, nor tell the states that they must criminalize certain aspects of deviant, violent or socially unacceptable behavior, neither can state law reign supreme over Federal law. This issue isn’t simple. Issues of law are complex things, and legal scholars and many lawyers spend countless years in pursuit of the studying of law. And with marijuana, though research (if it will ever bear out anything in the future that is not purely anecdotal in nature), may not conclusively say that marijuana is dangerous, my personal opinion of the stuff is that it reeks. And if anyone truly believes that they’re not frying up valuable brain-cells, increasing their risk of psychosis, schizophrenia and various other mental issues[xix] or that it has absolutely no negative effect on physical health in the long-term, then they delude themselves.

As a natural part of growing up, most have engaged in rebellious behavior that includes marijuana usage, binge drinking, and usage of other illegal drugs in their teenager years or in college. Again, if marijuana becomes legally and socially acceptable, young people will only be more exposed to it, believing it to be normal- as opposed to deviant- behavior. Normalizing and legally sanctioning a behavior only makes it more prevalent, not less. There isn’t a single issue in existence in the legal or social realm where this is not so.

And while it might be a normal part of growing up, I think it speaks for the state of society as a whole that it has become so acceptable in the mainstream. Because, lets face it, while rebellious and foolish behavior might be OK when one is young, if you’re much past the age of, say, 25 and you’re still lighting up on the regular and acting like a fool and partying then you should probably just consider yourself to be a burn-out[xx].

More than anything, the marijuana issue speaks to who we, The People, are as a culture. Increasingly the current cultural climate seems to be one of degeneracy and immaturity and a general all-around refusal of individuals as a whole to grow up, move out of mom and dad’s house and take responsibility for their own lives and their own well-being as well as the offspring they create and be responsible enough to act like mature adults, instead of being caught up in perpetual adolescence.

————————————–

Notes:

[i] Known as the Incorporation Doctrine. For an overview, reference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

[ii] For a more comprehensive overview of the subject of Federal and Constitutional Law, reference Daniel E. Hall & John P. Feldmeier, Constitutional Law: Governmental Powers and Individual Freedoms, Second Edition (Pearson, 2012)

[iii] To read the full text of the Declaration of Independence, of which this infamous belief is derived from, reference: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

[iv] Known as Natural Rights Theory, many liberals believe it applies to those even residing outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, or even illegal aliens. It is a political philosophical theory originally espoused by John Locke in the 17th and 18th centuries. See Locke’s Political Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ Several of the Framers of the Constitution were influenced by Locke’s theories, including Thomas Jefferson. See The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights: http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

[v] Reference Social Contract Theory for an overview of this political philosophy that man enters into a contract to be governed by the state: http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/elahi_socialcontract.pdf

[vi] United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259

[vii] Reference the NCSL Marijuana Overview for recent news on legalization/decriminalization: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx

[viii] A quick Google search for “am I the only one who doesn’t smoke weed?” brings up about 3,250,000 results in 0.46 seconds with discussion forums, YouTube videos and mainstream news articles with many prompting the same question. In my experience, a young man once looked at me in shock last year whenever I told him that I didn’t do drugs. The more mainstream drugs of any sort become, the more those who don’t do them are subject to isolation, a particular issue where teenagers are concerned where peer pressure is often a predominant force in a young person’s life. There is evidence that drug and marijuana use is on the rise among teenagers and high-schoolers as the push to legalize marijuana continues on: https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/monitoring-the-future-teen-drug-use-2017-survey/index.html

[ix] While a regular marijuana joint has lower levels of THC that typically aren’t fatal in the short-term, marijuana concentrates and the prevalence of “dabbing” are another concern. See the DEA’s pamphlet about marijuana concentrates for a primer: https://www.dea.gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/marijuana-concentrates.pdf

[x] So long as the individual is deemed competent, it is a fundamental Constitutional right to refuse even life-saving medical treatment: https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights.html

[xi] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

[xii] For a Tenth Amendment analysis and how it fits into the concept of federalism, reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html#amdt10_hd4

[xiii] See the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-1-the-legislative-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/

[xiv] See The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9565&context=penn_law_review

[xv] 317 U.S. 111

[xvi] 545 U.S.__

[xvii] See Hall & Feldmeier, supra, at 6-7

[xviii] Id. At 281

[xix] See Cannabis Induced Psychosis: A Review http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/cannabis-induced-psychosis-review

[xx] According to Urban Dictionary, a burn-out is defined as “A high school or college student who does little else than cut classes and smoke weed. Usually has long, straight hair and a proclivity toward heavy metal bands of the 70s and 80s. Can often be found in smoke-filled bathrooms and makeshift basement bars.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Burnout

The Sanctity of Marriage

As is always the way with me, I’m a thinker, a doer. Lately it has been on my mind to write a few things. Many aspects in life and including the comments I’ve received here have led me to think about these things. First off, I just want to say that it shouldn’t matter what anyone else thinks about the way you choose to live your life whenever you choose to live in a traditional way. I don’t have anyone I’m trying to please and the opinions even of my own relatives are unimportant to me. What they think about my lifestyle doesn’t matter.

Recently I had to send a formal letter to my own mother telling her that I wished no further contact with neither her nor any of my relatives. They were interfering in my life and it concerned me. It was getting completely out of hand. They would rather see my marriage ruined, they would rather see me finish college and live the life they want for me to be living[i].

But the thing is that none of that matters to me. And I’m writing and saying all of this because I know just how many young women out there are facing the same pressures from relatives[ii]. But like I told my own mother, I love her- I really do- I’ve always longed for a good relationship with her but I know that it’s just never going to happen. Ultimately, they are not what is of importance. They want me to live in a certain way but they won’t be the ones who ultimately pay the price for the life they believe I should be living- I will be.

Traditionally the law threw a cloak over marriage[iii][iv]. Even in religious beliefs, it is well established that a man and women leave the sphere of their relatives and join together. From then on out they are one and all others take second stage (or in some cases, such as is often the case with friends and acquaintances, cease to matter altogether). Only in matriarchal or tribal societies does marriage not take on such importance[v]. In these kinds of societies, even the raising of children becomes some community matter and there are no permanent and stable romantic relationships between men and women.

The existence and establishment of “gender equality” and “gay marriage” have lessened the importance and sacredness of marriage by obliterating separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes and stripping the true meaning from sex- but even here many jurisdictions still cloak marriage in various ways (such as exclusive rights to offspring within the marriage and immunity regarding testifying in criminal/civil cases). Where the last of these privileges fall by the wayside, it means that society no longer sees marriage as something worth preserving nor protecting.

This showcases what marriage traditionally meant to our society. Traditionally, the husband was head of the household. His wife and his children were his[vi]. The marriage was sacred and outsiders had no right to come in and interfere with the relationship of a man and his wife, or of parents and their legitimate offspring unless compelling circumstances necessitated the law’s interference. When you take away the foundations of the institution of marriage you also strip away all these protections.

Also keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter what the “majority” are supposedly thinking. Your average, ordinary citizen is largely ignorant of the law[vii] and the world around him (or her). Despite all our fancy technological gadgets, human beings are not any more or less ignorant than what we were thousands of years ago. Human nature doesn’t change and likewise humans tend to let emotion overwhelm them and get into a mob mentality where all common sense flies out the window. But that’s why your average, ordinary citizen doesn’t have the power to make laws or policies[viii].

It doesn’t matter what others say or do. Your best protection is to educate yourself (this can be done outside of formal settings) and marry a good man while you’re young. From there on out- no matter what the society might say right now as the society is not always right- your husband should be your everything. A young woman should start out by looking to her husband for everything. He should be your protection, your provision and your guidance that you look to. You will also hold great influence over him as well as many a man have accomplished great things when they had the guidance and support of a good and faithful woman by their side.

Relatives, in-laws, friends can all be nasty and vicious and tear apart marriages if they are allowed to. That’s why the marital relationship must be first in importance and why we need to get to the point in society once again where the husband is the head of house and responsible for his family and, absent compelling circumstances, rights are only established and defined within the state of marriage. In our world today, marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper that is optional whenever men and women procreate with each other- but this has got to change.

The marriage protects your privacy, the marriage protects your well-being. Also realize your influence as a woman. I never felt that my mother or relatives had my best interests at heart, which is why I always rejected the things they wanted for me and I always left their side and their influence to bond with my husband. I knew that my protection was only going to be found in him. I knew that no one else could ever protect, love or understand me the same. Others will invade on your home, attempt to run your life and invade your personal sphere and privacy if they are allowed to. Marriage should block this from happening and traditionally it always did by clearing establishing rights and responsibilities that could not be obtained anywhere else[ix].

Under coverture, for instance, husband and wife were considered as one[x]. A wife could represent her husband or conduct business in his absence even if need be, as they were one. A man could take his wife, wherever he found her, and take her with him wherever he went, as he had a right to keep her by his side and nobody had a right to keep him from her (unless she had obtained a legal separation from him). This protected her, and this protected the husband as well. A wife had a right to the support and protection of her husband, as he was responsible for her[xi]. He had the obligation to support her, and this ensured her security when she left her family and had children. The idea is to leave one’s relatives and cling to one another, forsaking all others[xii]. Even where your children are concerned, teach them the sanctity of marriage as one day they will leave the home to form their own families.

When the law upholds traditional marriage, the door can be slammed in the face of outsiders and all others as what goes on inside the home is sacred, because the marital relationship is sacred. I know that my husband knows me better than anyone else, and being there under his wing keeps others from harming and harassing me. My privacy is assured, my security is assured. This is important.

————————————

[i] This is what life looks like when following the feminist plan, check out my earlier article where I discussed my thoughts regarding this: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/why-young-women-shouldnt-listen-to-their-mothers-generation/

[ii] One recent comment (though there have been many just the same) on one of my recent postings showcases the pressures many women get, being forced into feminist lifestyles which they do not want on account of pressure from relatives https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/listen-to-me-victimology-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1133

[iii] For another example of the law legally cloaking marriage and protecting children and families, see The United States Supreme Court case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

[iv] There are numerous ways in which the law has done this, from spousal immunity to testifying in criminal trials, to disallowing paternity suits to children born within marriage, to protection in cases of disability and death, etc… Some states, such as California and New York, for instance, no longer regard marriage as a sacred institution, instead declaring that a child may even have as many as three legal parents in California, https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents an unmarried father having the right to claim rights to a child being raise by a woman and her lawful husband, and New York, for instance, recognizes no protections regarding privileged communications even regarding those occurring within legal marriage before the marriage has broken down.

[v] The Mosuo, from China, for instance, are probably the last modern example of this kind of matriarchal family structure: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/01/the-kingdom-of-women-the-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/19/china-mosuo-tribe-matriarchy The Late Daniel Amneus also portrayed the matriarchal way in his infamous book “The Garbage Generation: On the Need for Patriarchy” which showcases that many historical societies had no concept of even the word “father” as is the custom in patriarchal societies.

[vi] See my previous article https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-wrongs-of-the-mens-movement/ for more info on a father’s authority under coverture

[vii] Look at this poll, for instance, as reported in an article on CNN https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html which states that more than 1/3 of individuals surveyed couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only ¼ could name all three branches of government, and 1/3 couldn’t name any branch of government.

[viii] The framers of the Constitution intentionally feared a direct democracy, as well as too strong of a central government (even though they realized a stronger centralized government was necessary as the Articles of Confederation were weak and thus had to be repealed, and ultimately replaced, with the new Constitution that called for a Republic form of government where people elect representatives but do not directly make the laws and policies), and feared putting important matters in the hands of the common people http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

[ix] The old protections of marriage are numerous and plentiful. Check out some of my earlier articles on illegitimacy, for instance, for more references to ways in which this is so: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/illegitimacy/

[x] See, for instance, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208 ; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1 As American law is derivative of the common law of England, which was adopted by the colonists and still, to this day, remain our laws unless otherwise changed.

[xi] Consider the old English common-law “Doctrine of Necessaries” https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctrine-of-necessaries/

[xii] Though still treading the bounds of political correctness, consider this article which cites Biblical references about forsaking all others within marriage: Protecting Marriage from Outside Intruders: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/christian/Boundaries/09intruders.pdf

The Wake-Up Call

Sometimes in my spare time I like to watch old classic and vintage movies and TV shows. A while back I was watching a show called The Real McCoys. In one of the episodes, Grandpa and all of the guys were sitting around talking and one of the men starts chiming in about how he “runs his house” while all the men praise him as some sort of hero for it and it seems, at least on the outside, that what he’s saying might be true as it appears that his wife is doing what he’s telling her to do. Then one evening, however, the men are sitting around at his house (the guy who was doing all the talking about how he “ran his house” and “ran” his wife) drinking beer and playing cards when his wife comes home and they go in the bedroom and start arguing, with the wife complaining about the men being there and the husband then apologizing to her and everything. Meanwhile, all of the guys have their ears pressed up against the door listening to the whole conversation and hearing the wife berate the husband for having the guys there so late at night in the house. The guys then back off when they hear the couple coming out of the bedroom, look at each other kind of disappointed-like and say they better be getting home. Later on in the episode when they’re all alone, Grandpa tells his grandson, Luke, that all that talk about him “running” his grandmother was a load of hogwash. He then confesses that it was only true half of the time, and the other half of the time she “ran” him. Not only that, but he also confesses to his grandson that “…The truth is, I guess I just kinda miss it.” He says all this to his grandson and tells his grandson that he has a good and sweet wife, and he just didn’t want to see him go and ruin his relationship with her.

The truth of the matter is, a man’s authority is never 100%. A man is only given authority to fulfill his responsibilities to provide for and protect his wife and children or anyone else that is depending on him. A man also must have standing in order to assert authority; meaning, a man must be operating in his rightful role and fulfilling his responsibilities in order to be able to claim any kind of genuine authority over a woman (or anyone else).

To put it another way, consider how the courts consider if a person’s “rights” have been violated. A person must first have some sort of standing to be able to make a claim to some sort of rights or violation of rights. Take the instance of, say, a claim of an “unreasonable search or seizure.” An example would be when law enforcement come and search you or any property you have in your possession or a place where you are staying. An individual would first have to make a showing to the court that they not only had a right to be in the place that they were at, but also that they had a legitimate interest in or right of ownership to the property. If the individual doesn’t own the property, live there and maintain it, isn’t lawfully occupying it (long-term or temporarily), or has simply disposed of the property and shown no further interest in it, then the individual has no standing in regards to the property and thus there has been no violation of rights- because the individual had no right to the property in the first place or was only using or occupying it for unlawful and illegitimate purposes.

A woman is under no obligation to obey her husband if he is in the wrong. Also, sometimes a man may not realize the consequences of his actions and sometimes he falters, as well. In such a case it is up to his wife (or in some cases perhaps even his children) to tell him that he’s in the wrong and that he’s hurting them or depriving them of some legitimate need that they have a right to (a “legitimate need” being any physical need that is his responsibility to provide- food, shelter, clothing- or, in some instances, a true psychological need such as affection or love). As well, sometimes a man simply doesn’t realize that his actions are harming his family, harming his wife, or even that there’s a problem in the first place. In this case, if a woman never stands up for herself then nothing is ever going to change. No matter what men like to say, the truth of the matter is that most women have to make men grow up and take responsibility or else they never really will.

I think there was a true wake-up call for my husband yesterday. I didn’t go out and take on paid employment or anything like that, but I have been doing a lot of work to help my husband with activities and responsibilities that rightfully fall within his domain. Last night, however, the stress of it all was just getting to me too badly and my husband sat there at the table and watched me cry my eyes out. I was stressed, I was hurting, I was deprived of rest, angry towards him, and simply couldn’t take any more. Not only that, I’m a woman and deal with female issues too that were hitting me pretty hard. It was at that point that things changed, especially after a text message that was taken the wrong way. I was telling him how stressed I was and then the next thing I know I had a message come across with him telling me how he was going to come home and pop the cork on a bottle of wine and have a drink.

I began to get belligerently angry at that point and told him he was an idiot (YES I said those exact words), slammed down the phone, dropped everything I had been doing to help him and went right back to what I should have been doing all along- my duties as a wife and as a mother.

When he came home he said that it was taken out of context and that he just intended for us to relax together that evening, but nonetheless, I took it as him saying he was going to come home and start drinking while I sat there doing work that he rightfully should have been doing. I told him, plain and simple, that I had duties to fulfill as a wife and mother and those duties did not include fulfilling his responsibilities while he came home and sat around drinking! Though that was never his intention to do and it only came out wrong, it nonetheless got me thinking that there are a lot of women who deal with this exact same thing (as well as many other issues with their men). And guess what? Things will never change unless a woman makes it clear to a man that his behavior is not acceptable and refuses to go along with it. After I went off on him and refused to touch his responsibilities, guess who stopped watching television and started doing what he should have been doing in the first place?

Inside of marriage or outside, men just simply aren’t going to grow up if women are not making them do so. They aren’t going to marry, they aren’t going to be responsible husbands or fathers or ANYTHING unless women start demanding it of them. And it doesn’t matter one bit what men say. There’s such a thing called “talking shit”- and men- all men- do a lot of it. But in the end, women DO have the power to make men act better and change their ways. A woman does this with her love, a woman does this by being chaste and being a dutiful wife and mother and clearly communicating her needs to a man. Most of all, a woman does this by refusing to participate in activities that harm her, that go against what is right, and by refusing to submit to a man who is not operating within his rightful role or assuming his rightful responsibilities.

Also, a wife and mother has authority over her children as well as certain aspects of the household, which also means she has certain responsibilities therein. If she must do the man’s duties, then she must neglect her own responsibilities or else do both while her health and well-being suffers and the man is given free rein to act immature and irresponsible. I put down what I was doing for him, refused to touch it again as it had been consuming too much of my time and putting unnecessary stress on me and went to do my own duties. Ultimately, most men would probably much prefer it this way anyway, as it means the feminine things are taken care of.

I relaxed this morning. Even though I didn’t get all that much sleep, I still oddly felt like I had rested enough (probably because a lot of the strain was gone) and I laid in bed a bit longer while my daughter was up getting ready for school until it was time for her to leave. If nothing else, I was psychologically more at peace. It’s unreasonable, especially when I already deal with feminine issues that really hit me hard to also deal with male responsibilities. (My husband used to think things like “PMS” and the like were just women exaggerating- until he got married. Now he sees first hand, EVERY MONTH in symptoms that last for at least one to two weeks, how hard those things really do hit women and how much of a stress it is and what women actually go through- including a lot of physical pain and emotional strain- on account of our biology.)

I spent the morning doing all the girly things I do and taking care of the home. Nothing is neglected in the home now as it’s all pretty and clean and smells nice. He bought me a pretty shaded up-lamp yesterday and I put it in the kitchen for decoration and to give some soft lighting and I like to light up candles, spray freshener in the room and keep some flowers on the counter-top to make things all pretty, as well as make sure the floors are freshly swept and mopped. I like to take my time in making my own home in my own soft and feminine ways and always smiling while I do so.  As a wife and mother, even after many years, I’ve still kept my beautiful figure, pretty long hair, still stay freshly showered and wear makeup and pretty clothes, still act feminine and girly, and keep the house fresh and clean and everything organized. I like all the girly feminine things. He keeps me, loves me, protects me and has sheltered me for all these years so I get to remain all soft and fragile-like and feminine. It’s also the best anti-aging regimen one could ask for.

There’s nothing more wonderful than keeping a beautiful (even if only a simple) home and having a loving family. So always pass such wisdom on to your daughters and teach them the ways to be feminine, chaste, and keep a good home and love their husbands and family with all their hearts.

The Appearance of Impropriety

Former United States President Abraham Lincoln once stated, concerning who he was as a man, president and a public official, “I must not only be chaste, but above suspicion.” Mr. Lincoln knew that propriety- in both his public and private life- was a necessity, as all of our ancestors once did, in order to be seen as credible, respected and taken seriously.

When it comes to such issues that society deals with today, such as sexual harassment, or even the marijuana issue, for instance, it is clear that our society is asking all of the wrong questions, as well as focusing on all of the wrong issues, and this is mainly so because nobody wants to touch the electric barbed-wired fence that is feminism or any of its related issues. As well, Americans in general seem to have this whole “It’s a free country, so I can do whatever the Hell I damned well please” kind of outlook on life- even though such a view is largely fictional and holds no realistic standing under the law.

Law enforcement officers on every level are held to certain codes of ethical behavior as they are representatives of the law and of our social customs and values- and the President of the United States is the highest law enforcement officer in the land. It’s even more telling that ethical codes of conduct are being dropped even in the lowest standing trial courts of the land, where shootings and violence are now routine occurrences and foul-mouthed behavior has even become commonplace amongst prosecution and defense lawyers and judges.

Whether anyone loves Donald Trump or hates him, he is, nonetheless, a reflection of who we are as a people. He directly reflects upon us- and any group of people, if they are to survive and coexist with one another, must have a certain set of rules, laws and policies that govern their behavior and their interactions with one another. Culture and law are not separate from one another, but rather reflect upon and influence each other.

My take on this sexual harassment issue is that, yes, it is a load of BS. I think most people at this point would agree with such a consensus, despite the prevalence of the #MeToo movement and other “girl power” schemes that encourage women to be “strong” and stand up against “misogynistic” men (no mention of men having any actual duty here, other than perhaps to be “good little boys” who follow the rules feminism has laid out and be dictated by the whims and rule of females). However, the laws and policies against sexual harassment- as well as other related social issues- came into being for a reason.

As a society we can conclude that family is important, the care and well-being of children is important and essential, and as well, if we can conclude all of these things, we can also easily conclude that sexuality- and in particular female sexuality- is of upmost importance to society. Sexuality plays a central role in all of our lives from the very moment that we are born (if not before). Therefore, the regulation of how we (both males and females) express ourselves sexually and what we do with our sexuality is always going to be of concern to society.

Where once social custom and common law largely dictated the “rules” regarding sex and sexuality as well as family arrangements, all of the old restraints and boundaries have largely been done away with in modern society, necessitating the creation of entirely new polices and laws to take their place because the behavior (including sexual behavior and codes of conduct) of individuals in any society must always be subject to regulation and boundaries. Without regulation, there would be no civilization as individuals would have free reign to trample all over the rights, dignity and personal/property boundaries of one another. It would be a true case of survival-of-the-fittest and the people would still eventually have to come together to form a system of regulation and government, even if only informally.

If we, as a society, wish to do away with the post-feminist polices that have disrupted the order of family relations, relations between men and women and have created distrust, suspicion, burn-out, and placed antagonism between personal and romantic relationships and men and women, then we must replace the current laws and polices with other laws and policies that we might conclude to be more effective and fair to all parties.

It is not unreasonable for society to conclude that, with males being physically larger on average and stronger than females, as well as being the ones who penetrate and impregnate, that men should be held to higher standards of behavior in regards to how they conduct themselves towards and around women. The same holds true in regards to interactions of adults around children (even though these restraints, too, are largely being eradicated). We’ve dropped the idea that men should take care of women to replace it with the (entirely irrational and ineffective) fantasy idea that men and women should be “equals” and compete with one another entirely independent one sex from the other. Our laws, policies and social customs now reflect this viewpoint. But is such a thing rational, effective or productive? And to what ends?

Yes, I, as a woman, take offense at many aspects of Donald Trump’s behavior towards women. Blatantly disregarding and refusing chivalry to the First Lady, multiple divorces, offensive public discourse regarding women, scandals surrounding alleged extramarital affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, all show an appearance of impropriety, turning the presidency into little more than a joke and a position that cannot be respected nor taken seriously and clearly showcasing how low we as a society have sunk to. (If our law enforcement officers and elected officials do not even respect the rule of law nor hold themselves to ethical standards of behavior then why should anyone else? How can we respect such a rule of law or system of government at all?)

Without a doubt, all men are thinking the same things that Donald Trump has gone and said out loud. It’s just the way men are. They look, they fantasize, they like women and they like *****. Nonetheless, social custom (as well as common-sense) used to dictate that, just because a man thinks it, he should, nonetheless, be held to a certain standard of behavior in how he talks and behaves around women. Custom used to also dictate that women had a corresponding duty to be chaste and command respect from men, which is just as equally important.

As even some writers in the manosphere have stated, speaking out against their own fellow men, there isn’t a father in his right mind who would want his own daughter to come into contact with men who comport themselves in such a way; with “players” and men who act in narcissistic, abusive, Machiavellian, sadistic and perverted ways- the very behaviors that the red-pill and Pick-Up-Artist types teach men to become; the very behaviors that feminism has also allowed and encouraged. And being that Donald Trump is often heralded as a hero in the manosphere I’d say this is very telling for who and what we have become as a people. Why? Because all standards of ethical and appropriate sexual behavior and boundaries have been washed away. We are a civilization in despair seeking hedonism to relieve the pain, loneliness, brokenness and torment of our modern existence. We are a civilization without restraint, without control.

We can create any policies and laws that we as a people want. However, there is a cause-and-effect relationship with any law and policy and each law and policy proposed has to also be examined for its effects upon society and the individuals who will be subjected to said laws and policies. They must be evaluated for their effectiveness as well as reasonableness. The current laws, customs and policies simply do not function well to create order, stability, harmony, and prosperity. They don’t function well and will, inevitably, have to be re-written and done away with to be replaced with more workable and logical laws and policies- no matter who it might offend. And it will always offend somebody.

Gender equality doesn’t work. It’s that simple. Men and women are not the same nor is our sexuality the same. Until we, as a society, can acknowledge such a thing, there will be constant antagonism and war between men and women. There will be no peace. Nor can we make this a conservative vs liberal thing, or a Republican vs Democrat thing. It is a society-wide issue that reflects upon our culture, our nation and our values as a whole.