Sure, we know the Warren Court. That dates back to the last tumult in the Supremes. Under Judge Earl Warren, The Warren Court effectively ended racial segregation in U.S. public schools, expanded the constitutional rights of defendants, ensured equal representation in state legislatures, outlawed state-sponsored prayer in public schools, and paved the way for the legalization of abortion.

Cool, right? We support most of it, though there have naturally been some areas of legitimate disagreement in some of it. It is part of a Constitutional conflict ongoing throughout our history. Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the court from 1953 to 1969. He presided over a period marked by controversial decisions and impassioned public debate.

We have mentioned the impact of what is called the Decision Season from this edition of the Supremes. It is an interesting manifestation of the War being conducted not only on the Court, but on the Constitution itself. You can see some of it in the themes and memes that festoon the Campaign for this November’s General Election. “Protecting Democracy” is one of the mantras in play, which is a little surprising. As you probably know, “democracy” is not the form of government we serve.

In fact, that is one of the issues at play now. The original concept was that the Government was to serve us, the people. That is the root question that was addressed when we told the King to buzz off these shores. Compromise is a necessary, since the question appears to be back.

For a quarter millennium, we have operated as a Republic guided by Constitutional principals. Those are led by a Chief Executive, who derives power under. structure determined by a national legislature composed of representatives elected in a democratic means, and supervised by an objective judicial body which determines whether the ground rules of the Constitution are being obeyed.

That document is not inviolate, of course. The means to change elements within it are contained in the basic document. Because the truths in the original document were supposed to be self-evident, it was intended that the process of changing things would be a matter of discussion between the three elements of power in the government, two of them being directly responsible to the people every two or four years, with the third being independent over time and administration.

Because the process is challenging, and intended to be so, change is difficult. hence there have been a number of means to avoid the Constitutional process by work-arounds. The Warren Court was a reflection of an activist judicial approach to State laws and regulations once considered to not be the province of the Federal Government. Earl Warren’s Court took action to change the way schools were run, and whether changes in technology and science could be addresssed in a fair and honorable manner.

There is controversy about that, as there always has been. Some Amendments to the Constitution were made in accordance with the specified process. Like the 18th, which banned the production, transport and sale of alcohol. There are clear social benefits to such prohibition, but it did not quite work out that way. Instead, it established a massive nation-wide system of distribution outside the law. The 18th was repealed, but serves as a sort of parallel to other good ideas that have unfortunate, and mostly unintended consequences. You could make an argument about other prohibited things along the same lines, but that is the point of the original documents.

This edition of the Constitutional Crisis is a little more startling, since the Executive has ignored Supreme Court decisions with impunity. It has also unilaterally decided to ignore Federal law on immigration, or issue new ones without discussion by Congress, not to mention “forgiving” billions of dollars in student debt without discussion in Congress. All supported by regulatory decisions by Administrative Agencies not subject to discussion by anyone but the careeer bureacrts who formulte and issue them.

for So, nine of the Salts agreed with the Socotra Legal Section to take an informal look at this Decision Season. This all got started with the Bump-Stock decision issued by the Court two weeks ago. More came yesterday, Moore v. United States was a classic. The issue is not one with which most voters are aware, though it has potentially huge pocketbook implications. Putting it simply means losing some of the nuances inherent in the complexity of the case. But the key point is whether the Government has the power to tax- and seize- some percentage of funds that are only “estimated.” And “unrealized.”

Which is to say, real estate values have increased dramatically. Some jurisdictions have asserted the right to essentially tax homeowners based on the Zillow estimate of the property, whether it is sold or not. One of the issues in Moore’s case against the Feds was to define the tax limits of unrealized income.

For those who do not have any, or do not understand what it actually means, you can see why there is a difference of emotion.

We wish we could say Moore v. United States settled the entire question, but the Legal Section tells us we can feel however we want, but the further question of exactly how and when the Government can impose it’s needs is still undetermined and will take another laborious judicial process to refine. But that analysis is too simple, of course. A legitimate discussion about the concept might have been useful before it wound up wending its way through three or four levels of judicial proceedings with direct implications for anyone owning property. Or anything else.

Accordingly, nine of The Salts have been deputized to apply our own imperfect understanding about the fundamental issues at stake in ths Decision Season. If you thought Bump Stocks and Unrealiized Valuation were exciting, just see what is coming next. City of Grant’s Pass v. Johnson, Corner Post, Inc. v. the Federal Reserve, Department of State v. Munoz and Erlinger v. United States are still in the judicial hopper. We will be there for you!

Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com.