If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Ron Ewart, ©2012

(Jul. 1, 2012) — “Rules, agreements, contracts and constitutions work fine, that is until they are broken by one or both parties and then their power to hold man’s avarice and greed in check begins to disintegrate rapidly.  Disintegration is final when unresolvable conflicts arise between the parties.  Unresolvable conflicts are all that is necessary to end up resolving those conflicts by the last negotiation alternative ….. war.”  — Ron Ewart

NOTE:  When we started this column the U. S. Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Obama Care.  By now most of our readers are aware that the Supreme Court essentially upheld Obama Care and by some twist of fiat logic, five of the justices, including the supposedly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberal justices, converted the individual mandate to a tax, even though the Congress and the President did everything in their power to say that the mandate was not a tax.  We were tricked and lied to by the President and the liberals in Congress ….. again! 

We have posted the Supreme Court ruling on Obama Care to our website HERE.

To say that we are angered by the Supreme Court decision is an understatement.  The fact is, if Obama Care is allowed to stand, a Coup d’etat by the federal government has been thrust upon the American people by the force of law and we are now just “subjects” of that government.  We are no longer sovereign individuals with certain unalienable rights.  Our rights are limited to what the government mandates.  If Congress and a new president do not over-turn Obama Care, America ceases to exist as a Constitutional Republic and will become a Banana Republic.  This conversion, or transformation if you will, has been a long time in coming and has been pushed for 10 decades by the Progressive movement.  Obama Care, if not repealed in its entirety, completes this transformation.  America and its people will be but pawns of a government that will rule by whim and Presidential executive orders, rather than by the rule of law.  There are many Americans that will not take this decision lying down.  The battle lines are drawn and if not resolved, it could lead to the “last negotiation alternative.”

It must be remembered that Obama Care is overseen by Health and Human Services, a cabinet bureaucracy under the President.  The Cabinet Secretary of that bureaucracy serves at the pleasure of the President and must do his bidding, thereby giving the President the power to control your health care by his decision and his decision alone.   This immense power eventually evolves into an Absolute Presidential Monarchy.  That increase in executive power is the subject of this column.  The column covers some of the history of the demise of the U. S. Constitution by Congressional and judicial abrogation to the Executive Branch as well as controversial Supreme Court decisions (i.e. 1916, 1922, 1938, 1984 and now 2012).


Everyone talks a good game about America being a Constitutional Republic, but are we?  The facts speak otherwise.  Increasing Executive Branch power, eroding judicial power by its own decisions and congressional abrogation of power has changed America so drastically that it is but a shadow of its former self.

The Separation of Powers doctrine, as established by the Founding Fathers in the three branches of government, is now just a mirage.  The only thing that holds the federal government in check is the power of the states and after last week’s U. S. Supreme Court ruling, essentially striking down three out of the four major elements of the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, the states’ power is eroding as well.

It is worthy of note that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a justice that came with conservative credentials and appointed by President George W. Bush, sided with the liberal justices in both the Arizona decision and the Obama Care decision ….. a significant disappointment to American conservatives.  Perhaps “bewilderment” would be a better term.

Since President Lincoln, presidential powers have increased dramatically.  Subsequent presidents have increased executive branch powers even more.  Both presidents Wilson and FDR greatly expanded executive power and muscled the Congress and the Supreme Court to get what they wanted.  Commander-in-Brief Obama has been working on his radical version of fundamental transformations since he took office in 2009.  With any luck his advances toward his distorted vision of a socialist utopia will be snuffed out this November.

With U. S. Supreme Court decisions in the last several decades, a seal of legal approval has been placed upon that expanded executive power.  We are approaching what can only be described as an Absolute Presidential Monarchy and when the reader has absorbed what we present here, he or she should be shaking in their boots over the fundamental transformation of America that started long before His Majesty, Barack Hussein Obama, came on the scene.  Obama has just accelerated the transformation and with malice aforethought.  Reversing this long running, clandestine transformation (the signature achievement of the Progressive movement) may be the task relegated to all of the freedom-loving people of the 21st Century, if it can even be transformed.  America’s military and economic supremacy and exceptionalism may have been condemned to the history books because the people have been looking the other way for the last 100 years while the traitors amongst us and their lieutenants, were walking the halls of government, breaking the constitution and weaving a tangled web of laws and rules that even the most agile spider could not escape.

The systematic erosion of the U. S. Constitution has taken place over many decades, presidents and U. S. Congresses.   Whenever the Constitution got in the way, the President or the Congress found ways around it, either by fuzzy interpretations of Constitutional clauses, or simply by ignoring the Constitution altogether.  If there was no challenge to what the president or the Congress did, the action was affirmed as the law of the land by inaction.  And even if there was a legal challenge to the action, that didn’t mean that a lower court, or the U. S. Supreme Court for that matter, would rule in accordance with the full intent of the Framers of the Constitution.   Judicial activism was born soon after the ink was dry on the Constitution.

When societal biases entered the purview of the Court and courts became divided by political agendas, Supreme Court decisions became muddied by social and societal wish lists.  Literal interpretation of the Constitution went out the window.  Once the Constitution was broken, it was an easy matter to keep breaking it.

This gives rise to the question, why is the high court occupied by political ideologues in the first place?  Why is adjudicating law and legislation being decided by politics and not by literal interpretation of the Constitution?  Why do liberal judges and conservative judges vote as a block?  To say that Supreme Court decisions aren’t driven by politics is to say that the Sun doesn’t rise in the East.

The 16th Amendment, which gave rise to the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, broke with the Constitution in several ways, which we won’t go into here.    The 1922 decision by the U. S. Supreme Court expanding the police powers of government to include zoning and land use planning was an attack on the U. S. Constitution, not to mention freedom and liberty.  Property rights were altered dramatically by this decision, giving government the right to tell you what you could or could not do with your land, forever changing the allodial character of privately held land as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  (“Beware, when government plans, freedom gets trampled in the dust!”)

Government’s police powers have been expanding ever since and with the advent of the United Nations’ version of Social Justice and radical environmentalism (Agenda 21), land ownership and 5th Amendment protected property rights have been all but eradicated.

Another case that took a huge bite out of the Constitution was the 1938 Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins.  It severed the Constitution from the Common Law upon which it was based and substituted Common Law with Admiralty Law under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), fully sanctioned by the U. S. Congress.   Congress literally told the Federal Courts to change the law to whatever the courts thought it should be and they did.  Now, all courts, state and federal, have adopted the UCC.

How the Erie vs. Tompkins decision evolved into Admiralty Law under the UCC is well defined in a treatise from the Fordham Urban Law Journal (Volume 8, Issue 3, Article 6) by Louis S. Robin entitled: “The Uniform Commercial Code as Federal Law: United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.”  We have posted a link to this article near the top of the home page of our website at: http://www.narlo.org(click on the Supreme Court picture for a PDF version of the treatise.)

But a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision has all but put absolute power into the hands of the Executive Branch, virtually circumventing the other two branches of government.  In Chevron USA vs. National Resources Defense Council  (June 23, 1984) the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that in absence of strict legislative instructions from the U. S. Congress, federal agencies (a creation of Congress but under the control of the Executive Branch) can do pretty much whatever they damn well please.  But even worse, since the Federal agencies fall under the purview of the President’s Cabinet, an incoming President can totally undo what the previous President decided and vice versa.  There is no permanency to the law and it can vary from presidential term to presidential term.  The Congress can’t do anything about it unless it inserts itself into the executive branch and since federal agency decisions (rules) are often very technical, the Congress is reluctant to get involved.

(NOTE:  Congress doesn’t even read the legislation they are passing now and Speaker Pelosi had the audacity to tell the American people that Congress had to pass Obama Care so that they could find out what’s in it!  This lady has got to be 10 cards short of a full deck.)

The 1984 U. S. Supreme Court decision also removed any federal agency decision (rule) from being adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  This was somewhat altered by a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sacketts vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wherein the High Court ruled that an individual may challenge an EPA ruling in lower court, where before the individual had no judicial recourse against a federal agency ruling.  The individual only had an administrative recourse and guess who controlled the administrative process ….. the EPA?

The 1984 decision by the Supreme Court is in direct conflict with the basic legal foundation established by the Marbury vs. Madison decision of 1803.  The decision in the 1803 Supreme Court Case established the right of the High Court to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.  In summary:

“Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it.  Marbury then sued to obtain it.  With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.”  (Source: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=&doc=19&title=Marbury+v.+Madison+%281803%29)

In the U. S. Supreme Court’s case of 1984, where absolute, unilateral discretionary power was granted to the Executive Branch, the basic principle of judicial review was turned on its head.  By the Supreme Court abdicating its role as the final arbiter of executive branch law, it is clear that more power has been granted to the President than was ever intended by the Founding Fathers.

Each new law that Congress passes brings more bureaucracies with virtually unlimited power, more government employees and greater costs, all of which leads to a higher national deficit, an increasing national debt and less freedom for the people.  The new bureaucracies fall under the control of the Executive Branch, thus adding to the President’s ever-increasing power.   A recent article in the “Sovereign Man” on-line magazine agrees and warns against the growing, unilateral, arbitrary and sometimes capricious power of the President.  One paragraph in the article lays out the danger succinctly and we quote:

“The University of Chicago’s Richard Epstein warns that “government by waiver” is ‘among the most serious challenges to the rule of law in our time.’  The growth of the administrative state has concentrated enormous discretionary power in the president’s hands, and he can use that power to reward political allies and legislate by decree without the inconvenience of democratic deliberation.”

A case in point:  The Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill created the “Consumer Financial Protection Board“, along with the “Financial Stability Oversight Council” and the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau“, giving each agency effectively unlimited power under the president.  It is now being challenged on constitutional grounds.   From an article in “The Volokh Conspiracy” we learn that:

“The State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, the 60-Plus Association, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit against the Consumer Financial Protection Board alleging that the CFPB, as currently structured, is unconstitutional. Specifically the suit alleges that the CFPB lacks political accountability because, among other things, the President cannot remove the Bureau’s director save for cause and Congress cannot exercise control over the Bureau’s budget. Further, the suit notes, the Dodd-Frank statute limits judicial review of CFPB actions. ‘As a whole, Dodd-Frank aggregates the power of all three branches of government in one unelected, unsupervised and unaccountable bureaucrat,’ commented former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, who is representing the plaintiffs.” (source: http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/21/suit-filed-challenging-constitutionality-of-cfpb/)

Ladies and gentlemen, when does it end?  Or does it ever end?  How do you stop the President from issuing a constant stream of Executive Orders that circumvent the Congress?  How do you stop politicians from passing law after law after law?  How do you stop judges from legislating from the bench?  How do you stop the bureaucracies, at all levels of government, from promulgating a million more rules that limit or erase our freedoms?  “The Parallax Prophecies” predicts that you will not stop them until they fear you and right now politicians, judges and bureaucrats have no fear of you at all.   Why should they fear you?  You’re not fighters, you’re just pawns, lackeys, ignorant voters and freeloaders to them.

But wait!  What if a bunch of dedicated, fearless patriots, under the law, decided to go after each politician, each judge and each bureaucrat for malfeasance, misfeasance, violation of oath of office and corruption, one at a time?   Since the entire system suffers from systemic corruption, then it shouldn’t be too hard to find one or more of these guys or gals that is dipping his or her bill where it doesn’t belong and expose them.  When one politician went down to citizen scrutiny, other politicians would be looking around to see who was watching them.  Their replacements would be put on notice as well. When one judge was impeached because he strayed over the line, other judges would be wondering if they were next.

The same goes for bureaucrats, like the one who spent almost a million dollars of your hard-earned tax money for a lavish conference in Las Vegas.  If some concerned citizen had been watching him, he might have thought twice before going forward with his diabolical plan to steal your money and thumb his aristocratic, arrogant nose in your face.

We’re 310,000,000.  There are only 545 of them in Washington, DC and several thousand more in local and state government.  We can’t count on them to watch themselves now can we?  The checks and balances are gone and the 4th estate is more interested in ratings than they are in exposing government crime, corruption and fraud.  It is our money that government is wasting and our freedom they are taking.  As they are fond of saying in the south, “We have a real dog in the hunt“.  How hard can it be for thousands of us to trip them up and recall them, impeach them, or send them to jail?   It can’t be that hard ….. can it?

Based on the foregoing and the very recent Supreme Court ruling on Obama care, we can only conclude that the Constitution is, for all intents and purposes, extinct.  In the final analysis, it is up to us, We the People.  Do we truly want freedom and are we willing to defend it no matter what it takes, or will we capitulate to an Absolute Presidential Monarchy?  What we ultimately decide to do will determine whether freedom and American sovereignty will survive as intended by the Founding Fathers, or whether government tyranny will have been extended to its ultimate goal of ….. absolute power.

In the last remaining vestiges of our darkest hours, when all hopes of the rebirth of our freedom seem to be dashed, the dawn of ORDCA is approaching.   Make sure you don’t miss a single episode of ….. “The Parallax Prophecies.”

Ron Ewart, President


P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA  98027

425 837-5365 or 1 800 682-7848


Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The only fault I find with this article is the statement that it is “our money”. No, in fact it is not “our money”. We are only granted the legal right privileged of using federal reserve notes as if it is money. It is actually money that belongs to a private group of bankers who contract with the federal government to print it for them and then they loan it back to the federal government who makes it a law that we can tender these other peoples money (called federal reserve notes) for the payment of debts. That is the root of our problems and where we are today. It is the fact that our money is not “our” money. If it were, then we would not need a statute to tender it, like gold and silver for example that is mandated in the Constitution and is real money by the laws of nature. If it were “our” money, then we could just lend money to the government interest free and only pay off the principle because if it were “our” money then we don’t need to charge ourselves interest on money we loan to ourselves. The very fact that there is charged interest on all monies loaned to the government proves that it is not “our” money.