#constitutionalism

"U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s order halting the project, which Leon ruled cannot proceed without congressional approval."

"The initial lawsuit against the construction was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit organization, alleging Trump exceeded his authority when he razed the historic East Wing and launched construction on the new building."

Let's break this down.

First and foremost, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has no authority over any level of Government. It's a non-profit foundation that provides resources to sites that are Historic for preservation. They do not control any of the sites they supply funding and resources to. Resources include caretakers and financing for repairs and renovations. They do not own any of these sites: The specific level of government or private-citizenship own these sites.

Second, the Whitehouse is not any one of these sites receiving funding. This is because the Whitehouse belongs to the People of The United States. The sitting President of The United States is the caretaker and the sitting owner of the house. The President can do whatever the fuck they want to it.

Like Obama.

Obama razed the Whitehouse Rose Garden for a fucking basketball-tennis court. It had been planted by Elanor Roosevelt. It stood for all that time. Where was this National Trust for Historic Preservation then?

Third, the Constitution and Federal Law does not state anywhere that Congress must approve anything done to the Whitehouse. Zip. Nada. Nope, ain't there. There's no legal or historical precedent where any sitting President had to go before Congress and ask to make changes to the Whitehouse. No vote ever was placed by Congress to do anything to the Whitehouse.

Under Bill Clinton, the Whitehouse windows were sealed shut and replaced with bulletproof, soundproofed windows. The Regan administration soundproofed the walls. The bowling alley was installed by JFK. The rooftop of the Whitehouse was turned into a fortress under the first Bush administration.

Where, again, did any of this corrupt Judge's decision align with the requirement that Congress needed to approve any of it?

Funds for the Whitehouse. When the work requires budgetary changes, this is negotiated during the Federal Budget vote. That's all. Yet, guess what? This is paid for without US Tax Dollars being spent on it. Therefore, there's no funding required from the Federal Government's coffers, and no approval required. Even then, most major changes and renovations to the Whitehouse over the past hundred years has been part of a discretionary fund. When not used, it grows or maintains. It's there for making such changes -- but perhaps not as grand as this new ballroom and security implementation, but therein is the rub.

The Democrats want to usurp the power of the Presidency. By making this move, they're hoping to undermine the Executive Branch and would rather the work come from tax money. If it comes from taxes, they can increase taxes. If it is proven that the Government doesn't need your tax dollars to function, they lose the argument that taxes are required. If the rich donate money to Federal causes (like they used to back before the IRS), it undermines the narrative that the public needs tax dollar handouts to survive.

This isn't a small thing. This is the game-winning move.

If the Democrats successfully win this argument, which they won't because it's based entirely on hope and lies, the Executive Branch becomes subservient to the Legislative Branch and is effectively neutered -- leading to Democrats attempting to push the Constitutional changes required to legislatively abolish the Presidency into a puppet show.

That's bad for you. That's bad for everyone.

If the Democrats lose this argument, which they will because it's based entirely on hope and lies, the Executive Branch will retain sovereignty over it's portion of the Constitutional powers vested within it. This will put to bed the legal challenges that corrupted Judges are making. It effectively forces Congress to concede that taxation is unnecessary to fund Governmental operations. Furthermore, it raises the question if taxation without representation has returned to the table.

The Congress does not work for you. They say they do, but they do their own thing based on a cabal of agreement to a central authority that is not We The People. They listen to big dark money to remain in power, making millions through insider trading. This isn't new news or conspiracy, we have already discovered it. We know about it. But you people keep voting for the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome by name recognition alone!

You don't see their votes. You don't talk to your statesmen. You don't call or write them, or go to their offices to speak to them. When they hold townhalls, they're preaching to you and not listening to you. When you speak up, they silence you. It's time to change.

This isn't about party lines. This is about who is really paying for the vote. It's time that real citizens with real ideas, not lawyers turned politicians, enter politics. This country is founded on smart people willing to sacrifice to stand up against malignancy.

People like Brandon Herrera, a Republican candidate running for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District in 2026. He challenged incumbent Tony Gonzales, who has now dropped out of the race. He's just like any other citizen, but with the power of knowledge, intelligence, and the focus of the people in mind. Not like California's Gavin Screwsome or AOC, who are self-serving and irresponsible to the People that voted for them.

So when someone says, "Orange Man Bad," remember: These people keep voting for those like Adam Schiff, who are too overeager to take your rights away by convincing you that it's better for everyone that you don't have rights, and to trust the Government to decide who lives and who dies while you give them 50% of your hard earned money through taxes. Sales tax. Real estate tax. Fuel tax. Energy tax. Natural gas tax. Ammo tax. Vehicle Registration Tax. State income tax. Federal income tax. Hospitality tax. Tourism tax. COVID tax. Estate tax. Death tax...

Tax! TAX! TAXES!

And for what? Power. If you're poor, you're subservient. You need handouts to survive because HALF of your money is taken by the Government. Don't believe me? Look at your tax forms. Really look at them and think about your purchases over they year. Do the numbers yourself.

8% here, 12% there, just for purchases. 10% on a home. Take a flight or train to visit family? Tax. Buy a home? Tax. Buy a car? Sales, Vehicle, Fuel, Emissions taxes. Many taxes are even atop one another for the same amount as the original purchase! Meaning, if you have two taxes for a $20K car, both account for that amount.

Food tax. Delivery tax. TAX! TAX! TAX! That's what voting Democrat gets you. That's why allowing these corrupt judges and politicians to continue to erode the Constitution means to you. The IRS isn't even in the Constitution! It's reauthorized by Presidents and Congress every fucking time!

WHY?!

Because without you being poor, they have to be fiscally responsible. They are squeezing you for your blood and hard work. You're a slave to them. They're only trying to limit the Presidency and Executive Branch because "Orange Man Good!"

Now is the time to do the right thing: Vote with your head, not your heart. Do the research. Look at your representatives, mayors, councilmen, and judges that you vote for. Really look at them. Look at their records for voting, decisions, and what they've been saying and how they've been saying it. Compare them with the others. And if you don't like either?

Maybe you should campaign for their job if think you can do better, and can convince others the same. You don't need to be rich. You just need to be an honest patriotic citizen who listens with good judgement and can compromise.

"The Democrat brand is toxic, its cities crumbling, its policies unpopular. Without a drastic course correction, the party faces a slow death—fractured by infighting, abandoned by its base, and outmaneuvered by a New-Republican movement that’s seized the mantle of common sense and liberty…"

The Founding Fathers and the Roots of Liberalism

By Michael Kumpmann22 August 20242

Michael Kumpmann examines the roots of liberalism, its connection to the American Founding Fathers, and the ongoing debate over human rights and societal responsibilities.

In my previous articles, I have discussed many aspects of the First Political Theory, liberalism, and its relationship with the Fourth Political Theory, both praising and criticizing them. This included examining the Austrian School, Agorism, and several Enlightenment figures like Voltaire, as well as their development from Hobbes through Locke to Rousseau and Kant. I have also reviewed the philosopher Leo Strauss, his views on liberalism and geopolitics, and several other related topics. However, I have not written much about the origins of liberalism and have not yet looked at the central political figures from this period of its development. Since this would indeed make sense, I dare to start with that here. Alexander Dugin also did this regarding the Second Political Theory, which he ultimately rejected, but he also considered and analyzed founding figures like Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse Tung, highlighting the positive aspects of their thinking. I believe the same should be done with the First Political Theory.

The origins of the First Political Theory of liberalism as a practical statecraft lie in three countries: England, the USA, and France. France is interesting because it directly produced Napoleon as a more traditional “backlash,” but the French Revolution did not serve as a great role model. Both anti-liberals like Savitri Devi, Ernst Jünger, and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as liberals like Erich von Kühnelt-Leddihn and Hans Hermann Hoppe, rightly characterize this revolution as the primal catastrophe of modernity and, in fact, as the essence of what kind of modernity must be fought against.

The developments in England were closely linked to those in the USA (especially thanks to the War of Independence). Therefore, it might be most interesting to focus on the American Founding Fathers. In particular, Thomas Jefferson is also interesting for anti-liberals.

Moreover, examining the American Founding Fathers also helps to better understand the dichotomy between classical liberalism and liberalism 2.0.

The Problem with Human Rights

Regarding the American Founding Fathers, it must first be noted that they philosophically based themselves on Locke’s concept of human rights. This concept is, of course, inherently worthy of criticism. Alain de Benoist has written excellent treatises on the highly hypocritical foundations upon which the idea of human rights is based. Carl Schmitt also showed very well how shaky this concept actually is. Even the Marquis de Sade already noticed that liberals criticize the human rights violations of their political opponents more harshly and are all too willing to sweep their own under the rug. Alexander Dugin himself also pointed out that liberals only grant people rights when they conform and participate in liberalism. (A good example is the current demand to partially revoke Björn Höcke’s1 basic rights.)

However, logically, human rights must also be regarded as a flawed concept. The goal of a constitution is actually to establish a minimal state and limit the power of the state. At the same time, it is true, as Francis Parker Yockey said, that liberals possess a hypocritical “friend-enemy distinction”: The main threat to the citizen’s human rights under liberalism is the state. But who is supposed to ensure that human rights are upheld? The state.

Therefore, fundamentally, liberalism is a “putting the fox in charge of the henhouse” philosophy. And this is where ambiguity comes into play, turning human rights in a “minimal state” upside down. Where can human rights be violated? Theoretically, anywhere — even at home in the bathroom. So the state must follow the citizens everywhere to ensure that nothing will happen. Certain human rights also allow for other ambiguities in interpretation. For example, a person has a right to life. Does that mean the state is not allowed to murder the citizen? Must the state monitor that citizens do not murder each other? Or must the state keep citizens away from things like cigarettes since they shorten life expectancy?

Of course, it is like this: Part of the philosophy of human rights is the aphorism “Your rights end where the rights of others begin.” But it is not clearly defined when they do. The philosophy of human rights actually demands that citizens are considerate towards each other and consciously avoid crossing boundaries. However, if you know lawyers, you will notice that often the opposite is the case. Most people want to extend their own rights as far as possible and keep the rights of others as limited as possible. This leads to situations where judgments, contracts, and laws must regulate everything down to the smallest detail. See the fact that Apple’s iTunes terms of service are now much longer than the US Constitution. Or the following fact: Since the beginning of 2024, Mickey Mouse, in its earliest form as Steamboat Willie, has become public domain (without copyright). However, there is a debate over whether Disney could sue an artist if they depicted Mickey with red pants. For people outside the legal profession, this seems rather petty and far removed from “common sense.”

Such developments are not really the ideal of a minimal state that leaves its citizens alone but rather approaches the totalitarian opposite. Therefore, the liberal minimal state already contains a totalitarian seed. One could, of course, argue with Leo Strauss that human rights are not everything and that people also need virtue. And that this totalitarian seed arises more from liberals turning away from virtue and towards mere survival. Benjamin Franklin wrote several texts in which he regarded Aristotelian virtue ethics as the true foundation of the United States and argued that if this were lacking, the USA would collapse. This suggests that Strauss’ theory that the USA is built on Aristotelian virtues is correct and that this was exactly the intention of the American Founding Fathers.

However, one could cynically ask whether truly virtuous people would still need human rights or whether the mere necessity of human rights already proves that the people have strayed from the path of virtue. Of course, the latter is the case. What is also related to this is that human rights almost provoke the “tragedy of the anti-commons.” The tragedy of the anti-commons is essentially a situation where people use their rights to block each other to the point that the situation benefits no one. And human rights provoke such a situation. In a dispute where person X says, “I won’t give person Y this thing, and I have the right to refuse,” the only “retaliation” allowed by human rights is essentially, “You refuse to give me what I want, so I’ll refuse to give you what you want.”

It is also noticeable and interesting that in Western societies, phenomena such as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), Quiet Quitting (where people deliberately do only the bare minimum at work to avoid being fired), or movements like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), where young male “failures,” because they cannot obtain what they want from society (usually happiness in love), adopt a total refusal stance towards society, and then the state and society often respond to this with coercive measures (especially on the issue of unemployment). This is often justified by the argument that such people do not recognize what is good for them. See my article on Kant and his problematic definition of reason, which boils down to “If you do not agree, you are not intelligent enough to be allowed to disagree, as only agreement is a sign of intelligence.”

Developments like those described are, of course, toxic for society and should not exist in this form. However, they can be explained with economists like Schumpeter (who viewed the family and its support as the main motivation for work and entrepreneurial activity) and Jordan Peterson’s theories on the importance of responsibility. From a human rights perspective, such total refusal is actually a legitimate decision.

A constructive cooperation within the framework of human rights is only possible if one thinks, “Yes, I have the right to refuse X, but if you give me Y in return, I am willing to give up this right.” This is because only then can a constructive discussion take place where both parties can agree to a deal that benefits both.

This is, in fact, not initially a bad thing and is normal. We existentialists also call this radical freedom. A principle of existentialism is the principle of radical freedom, which states that while there are rules, laws, obligations, and the like, there can never be a hundred percent certainty that the other party will follow them. Even if there are penalties for breaking these rules, the other party still has the option to break them and accept the penalty.

Despite this radical freedom, a basis of trust must be built where both parties can be secure enough that the other will keep the agreement. This requires a mutual desire to be seen as a trustworthy person, which also includes doing things one does not like but has agreed to.

Ernst Tugendhat wrote some good things on this topic. His ideas allow for the argument, from an existentialist perspective, that a market, in certain respects, encourages citizens to become more “moral” because the market compels individuals to adopt the mindset of “I must behave in a way that others can trust me.”

It becomes a problem when some people or groups take the position of “This is my/our right, so no consequences should follow for me/us.” Once such groups gain enough attention, the foundations of basic rights become unhinged, and the fundamental trust in society is undermined. Through “liberalism 2.0,” we have exactly this situation. This attitude of “It’s my right, so no consequences should follow” is alarmingly widespread today. The most well-known examples of this are many feminists but also many people from the millennial generation, for whom even criticism of their behavior is an attack on basic rights. It is noticeable that liberal societies have not been able to prevent such an attitude, which is pure poison for their own foundations, from spreading widely in the population.

Of course, in the spirit of basic rights, one should not respond to such rejection by violating the basic rights of others. But there is no basic right to freedom from any consequences.

Jordan Peterson said in several videos (drawing on existential psychologist Viktor Frankl) that it is foolish for everyone to constantly talk about rights since responsibility is more important than rights and that one can only find happiness by finding something outside oneself, taking responsibility for it, and even sacrificing oneself for it. (For example, family, a project, social causes, the nation, etc.) Because only this can provide a sense of meaning and fulfillment. One’s rights alone cannot do this. Peterson is, of course, right about this and comes surprisingly close to Evola and his description of the warrior ethic as the male path, with the essence of warriorhood being the willingness to suffer for something higher and more important than oneself.

1

Björn Höcke is the head of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) in the German state of Thuringia

Original at

For many Constitutional law scholars, last years' Dobbs decision on abortion rights at the Supreme Court came as a dismaying shock, because it showed conclusively that conlaw wasn't a realm of ideologically consistent intellectual foment, but rather, a matter of politics.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

“I appreciate the Supreme Court stepping in and recognizing that I do not lose constitutional protections just because of speculation and innuendo. I am not a health threat to anyone, and I have a right to continue to cut hair and earn a living,” Manke said in a statement, according to WNEM. “The Courts have consistently upheld my constitutional rights affirming that the Governor’s attempts to shut me down were out of line.”

“The new regime tried to avoid the stormy days of previous revolutions. Security on the streets was bolstered. The prices of bread and meat were reduced. The administration developed policies to prevent the mob from intervening in politics. The month of Romanadan arrived, and while Bayraktar took action to ban ‘political conversations’ (devlet sohbeti) in public spaces such as coffee- and bathhouses, he encouraged the people of Istanbul to make use of the promenades in the city and on the Bosporus, listen to storytellers and watch shadow theater, liberates themselves from worry, and enjoy the holy month. Despite such measures to divert the public’s attention from janissary politics to entertainment and amusement, Krasnokutskii was right to be concerned. In late October, observers recorded several minor episodes of unrest in the city. Early signs of a rebellion against Bayraktar appeared in mid October. A crowd jeered Ubeydullah Kuşmani, a popular preacher and a strong supporter of the New Order, who had mercilessly ridiculed the janissaries in his Letters and sermons. Soon afterward, a massive janissary gathering around the Fatih Mosque protested against Kuşmani, and the government expelled him from the city to calm the protesters.

Bayraktar’s attempts to stop the daily salaries paid to some janissary affiliates and to draft soldiers for the New Militia generated serious tensions. Mahmud II was said to have secretly backed the janissaries against the grand vizier in this conflict. Grand Admiral Ramiz’s decision to repeal the fees collected from foreign vessels at the docks by the marinas created discord between the mariners, rowers, and porters of Galata harbor and the new regime. Most of these harbor workers had janissary affiliations. Tensions only amplified after the New Militia stormed dockside coffeehouses and the sailor’s leader, Kahveciouğlu Mustafa Agha, was executed on Bayraktar’s orders.

Conflict between the new regime and janissary affiliates was just one prolem that the New Orderists faced. Support from the palace circles was also shaky. The deposed Sultan Mustafa IV remained alive, ensconced in his chamber, and his supporters, particularly his sister Esma Sultan, who was a generous benefactor of the janissaries, lobbied among the elders of the corps on his behalf. According to a contemporary historian, at one moment, some janissaries spoke of Esma Sultan as a possible candidate for the Ottoman throne. Although the credibility of this report is unsure, the possibility of a pro-Mustafa IV revolt with her support was not totally to be discounted. Perhaps the most important development that left Bayraktar’s regime vulnerable was the fact that he had already sent most of his troops to the Danubian front in October. By early November, Bayraktar did not have enough of a military presence in Istanbul to protect his regime. Reporting to Vienna, an Austrian diplomat summarized the situation in Istanbul:

After the troops of Mustafa Pasha and the armies of other pashas who had been invited to the capital city [for the assembly] left the city for their regions, the janissaries raised their heads and picked up their courage again. For a couple of weeks, rumors and murmurs, which had been suppressed, started to circulate among the people once again. But these were not taken into consideration, because such chatter had long been common ever since the arming of the general public after the arrival of the British fleet in February 1807. New songs and expressions mocking the New Militia emerged. People ridiculed the soldiers’ hats. According to one rumor, the keys of the twenty-four gates of the city, which had been held by the janissaries, would be taken from them and given to the New Militia. This was the state of the people on the night of November 14 [1808].

At a dinner party organized by Manuk at his mansion in honor of the Russian delegation, Signora Pizzani, the wife of an Italian consultant to several embassies in Istanbul, told Krasnotkutskii that people were angry at Bayraktar because of his treatment of the janissaries. She said that another revolt soon would not be unexpected. As Signora Pizzani anticipated, the next day, November 15, the storm began. Bayraktar visited the chief mufti’s residence fo the ceremony of the Night of Destiny, a holy day in Ramadan. On his way back to his palace with his entourage, he encountered protests. Observers mention notes attached to the walls predicting that blood would soon be shed on the streets of Istanbul. Before long, various groups were heard to have mobilized in different parts of the city. These began marching on Bayraktar’s residence, which was not well guarded, and around midnight, a large number of janissaries attacked it. Rather imprudently, Bayraktar had sent his closest associate and bodyguard, Boşnak Agha, to Ruse [on the Danube] following news from the region that Molla Idris, the magnate of Vidin, was [conspiring against him.] ...

In Istanbul, on November 15, the janissaries besieged Bayraktar’s mansion. Noting that he himself was a janissary, connected the 42nd unit, Bayraktar protested that he had even had a fountain built at their barracks, so how could he be against the janissary cause? He asked the crowd to let women and servants leave the mansion. Following skirmishes with a handful of his [personal guards from Bulgaria], an explosion then occurred in the building when ammunition exploded in a storage area. The building collapsed, and dozens of janissaries were killed. It is not clear whether Bayraktar was dead or whether he had escaped through a tunnel from his mansion. People would later believe that he had committed suicide.

Soon groups atacked the mansions of other members of the ruling elite, slaughtered many of them, and plundered their property, while others attacked the New Militia’s remaining troops. Many soldiers of the New Militia came from the Balkans, were not familiar with the streets of the city, and in many cases, found themselves trapped by the janissaries on dead-end streets. These scuffles continued for several days in different neighborhoods of Istanbul, in Galata, and in Üsküdar. This mutiny was not nearly as well organized as the May revolution, and in many ways was not typical of janissary revolts. This episode was more violent, uncontrolled, and widespread. On several occasions, janissary elders and some members of the ulema tried to hold back the crowd. In fact, to limit the struggle to overthrow Bayraktar, they prevented janissaries from attacking mansions in which provincial notables were being hosted. It remained possible that the notables who had left and those who had stayed in Istanbul would unite, as provided for in the Deed of Alliance, and that they would attack the janissaries to save Bayraktar and the New Order. But this did not happen.