Is It Time For A Divorce?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-01-24 06:38 by Karl Denninger
in States , 214 references Ignore this thread
Is It Time For A Divorce?
[Comments enabled]

Short answer: YES.

EXCLUSIVE: The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."

The Republican attorneys general, in a letter submitted to the Senate Wednesday morning and obtained by Fox News, urged the chamber conducting Trump's trial to "reject" the impeachment articles.

"If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers' design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers," they wrote.

Of course Schitthead doesn't see it that way, nor does Pelosi.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: The Feral Government no longer represents at least half the people.  At all.  What's worse is that The States have refused to push back and demand this crap stop, under penalty of secession or worse.

The Declaration makes clear that all governments only exist with the consent of the governed.  At the point said consent is lost you no longer have a government -- you have a tyranny.

Have the people consented to being financially raped on an after-tax basis for another 20% of their income and spending every single year by the medical system?  Of course not -- and of course this is hidden by active conspiracy too, and that's by both the State and Local Governments along with the federal folks.  Every single State Cop, local cop or County Sheriff who has the right to enforce State Law (that's essentially all of them) along with the federal attorney general could put a stop to this monopolist practice under 100+ year old felony criminal law tomorrow.

None have.

The State AGs now propound that the impeachment articles do not meet Constitutional muster.  They're right.  Specifically, the second article is void for consideration; there is no such thing as obstruction of Congress.  Nobody has a duty ever, under any circumstance, to bend knee before Congress or the Executive; that's what courts are for -- to determine whether or not the demands of both are within the boundary of the law.  To short-circuit that process and declare such to be "impeachable" is an argument for instantaneous secession by the States and a flat refusal to comply with any Federal alleged law, backed by whatever is necessary, from the people at-large.


Because a Representative Republic demands that the people's voice be honored except where a clear violation of said protocols between the branches and the law established by the courts when there is actual controversy, has occurred.

Impeachment exists because there are such instances that can (and in the past) have occurred.  Nixon was not actually impeached but he was threatened with it and resigned when it became clear that not only would the House vote out articles but the Senate would convict.  It is important to note that his decision to resign came only after the Supreme Court ruled against him on Executive Privilege; at that point further defiance was Obstruction of Justice, an actual crime, and he was thus properly subject to impeachment for same.

Bill Clinton was impeached largely due to perjury which is also a crime.  His defenders claimed that it was "merely about sex."  So what?  Tell that to Michael Flynn who is facing prison time or those currently in prison who were convicted of not being honest (perjury) about something that wasn't a criminal act.  If they can go to prison then Clinton could legitimately be impeached on the same basis; indeed there's a clean argument that the "sex" was a long way from purely-consensual given the radical power imbalance between the President of the United States and an intern.  However, the Senate voted to acquit.  So be it.

They Attorneys General of the States can whine and bitch but in the end they are either willing to back up their complaints with force, either economic or literal, or they are nothing more than a bunch of crybabies.  Where is the 100% E-Verify in the States -- which would instantly slam the door on illegal invaders and employment, as just one example?  Start locking up employers for breaking the law on who they hire (a law that is already on the books, I remind you) and that crap stops instantly.

Start putting medical providers in prison under 100+ year old law and their******job on the American public stops instantly.

In short virtually all of the complaints that people have in this regard have solutions within the existing framework of the Constitution and if the Federal Government tries to prevent it then it's on like Donkey Kong because we then fall back on The Declaration; claims of who say it is a "quaint" document of no force and effect post Civil War be damned.

Time to choose America, and it is a fact that thus far the State governments and their AGs have chosen to not only look the other way while you're raped both financially and in terms of freedom to within an inch of your life, they actively enable and participate in it.

View with responses (opens new window)