by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

I’ll tell you where — absent.

And it is for this reason — standing alone, above all others — that I declare we need to revisit The Declaration of Independence and have a clear and public debate on secession.

There are two groups of people in this country, roughly — those who believe in the Constitution as written and those who do not.  Those who believe in it as-written also believe in the process to amend same, and we respect said amendments, whether we agree with them or not.

Those who do not believe in the Constitution include Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh and indeed the entire Supreme Court along with all 535 members of Congress.

The group that believe in the Constitution is much smaller than those who do not, but we are not absent.  Indeed I suspect we reach the critical threshold for such things — which is around 10% of the population.  In a representative republic it does not matter how small one is as a minority, however — the entire premise of such a form of government is that minorities have the same right to expect enforcement of the Rule of Law as the majority does.

It is for this exact reason that the sort of attack which took place against Kavanaugh has occurred, it is why you get buttraped on a daily basis by the medical system and it is why car insurance in Michigan is ten or more times as expensive for basic liability coverage as it is in other parts of the nation.  It is why various CEOs robbed you blind before 2008 and why Wells Fargo didn’t have one executive indicted and imprisoned after that firm continued ripping people off in the years since, including with outright-forged “account applications” the consumer never filled in or requested.

What happened with Brett Kavanaugh — unbridled character assassination on a grand scale, intentional violation of Judiciary Committee rules by Feinswine, the apparent suborning of perjury by a former FBI agent who was fingered as obtaining assistance in beating a polygraph from Ford herself and more, is an outrage.

That Feinswine was not immediately expelled from the committee for violating its rules on admissible evidence before same, which absolutely bars the sort of “late hit” game she played with such allegations, is outrageous standing alone.  That the rest of the Democrats in the committee piled on and abused said violation is inherently also not only in violation of the rules of the committee but is also in violation of the rules of comity that the Senate allegedly upholds.

May I remind you that the Senate has the right to expel members for such behavior.  Yet it has not, and will not — and you will not demand that it does.  May I ask why not?

May I also remind you that everyone made such a big deal about allegations made under penalty of felony, yet not one perjury investigation is yet underway, nor has anyone been called on same, even with regard to the most-outlandish allegations put forward by CreepyPornLayer Avenatti on behalf of Swetnick, who had her credibility impeached almost immediately by others and then impeached her own sworn testimony on national television — on MSNBC, a hard left liberal news channel — a couple of days later.  Now she’s whining that she’s “disgusted” at being “re-victimized.”  Heh chick: Blow me; you’ve done more damage to actual victims of sexual assault than anyone since the Duke Lacrosse liar.  You should hang for what you pulled along with CreepyPornLayer.

If you remember the same sort of allegations were made against Judge Moore in Alabama.  As soon as that campaign was over the accusers vanished, despite hard evidence that the so-called “yearbook” presented as evidence was in fact intentionally forged.  Neither the accuser or their attorney, despite having seen and handled the facially fraudulent yearbook (the color of the ink changed mid-“signature”) faced any sanction for what appeared to a prima-facia act of forgery and perjury.

We also have Federal Judges who sit on a given circuit court issuing blanket, national injunctions.  These are blatantly unconstitutional as no judge has the right to bind conduct beyond the boundaries of his or her jurisdiction.  The federal appellate system is broken into different circuits and jurisdictional boundaries on purpose to prevent a single judge from doing this sort of thing; if the issue is truly in controversy and differs between circuits it properly makes its way to the Supreme Court in due course.  An alleged injunction beyond the boundaries of one’s jurisdiction is extra-judicial tyranny, a legal nullity and to the extent enforcement is threatened it quite-arguably constitutes armed insurrection against the United States.

Prior to the 18th Amendment the Federal Judiciary and Congress knew they could not ban alcohol sales and importation on a national basis by other than Constitutional Amendment.  Irrespective of alleged justification while individual states and counties could and did ban the sale (or even possession) of booze such could not be imposed beyond that local or state political boundary without a Constitutional Amendment, and the judiciary, county and state governments knew it.  The 21st Amendment repealed same; both the 18th and 21st Amendments were Constitutional and in accordance with the rule of law.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org