Gangsters

Gangsters


Gang Wars:  Two Gangs Face Off
[courtesy Google Images]

I’m going to start this article with a definition:  the term “gangsters” signifies a minority-group of people who believe they are so “special” that they are not subject to the law that applies to the majority.  These “gangsters” often justify their exemption to the law of the majority based on claims of racism, injustice, poverty, or even necessity as in “my baby momma hungry, so I steal sumpin’.”
If it’s true that “gangsters” are minority groups who feel entitled and justified to be exempt from the law of the majority, aren’t the police, in particular, and government in general also “gangsters”?

Don’t the police enjoy immunities from legal liabilities that would get most people thrown in the slammer or even executed?  Can’t the police get away with murder?  With lying on the witness stand?  With lying to suspects? To  falsifying evidence?  With initiating prosecutions against people for victimless crimes?  With enforcing fictional jurisdictions?

The whole idea of a “police state” makes the police seem special and entitled to break the law.  The American police state has been growing since the 9/11 attack in A.D. 2001 and subsequent enactment (without being read by Congress) of the “Patriot Act”.  As a result of the “Patriot Act,” government in general and police have enjoyed new “immunities” for violating the law.


What are those “immunities” if not evidence that the police are a “minority-group of people who believe they are not subject to the law that applies to the majority”?

How does the cops’ belief that they’re “special” and entitled to avoid accountability under much of the law, differ from the belief of gangs like the Bloods, Crips, and Mexican Mafia that they are “special” due to racism, poverty or even brute strength and therefore also entitled to avoid accountability under much of the law of the majority?

By the definition I’ve proposed for “gangsters,” the cops are just another gang.

What about Presidents who are supposed to only execute and enforce the laws but violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by legislating under the guise of executive orders?  They think the laws are for someone else.  They think they’re so “special” that they shouldn’t have to obey the law.  They’re gangsters.

What about Senators and Congressmen who broker laws based on political campaign contributions (bribes) rather than actually legislating laws by debating and writing the laws themselves?  These politicians think they’re so “special” that they shouldn’t have to obey the law.  They’re gangsters.

What about Supreme Court Justices who argue that the Constitution is a “living document” whose meaning is constantly in flux and subject to their “judicial interpretations”?

If the Constitution was ever intended to be a “living document” whose meaning was constantly changing with the times and left to be “discovered”  at any moment by the Judiciary, why does Article V of the Constitution specify the only process by which the Constitution can be lawfully amended?  Why is that amendment process restricted to the legislatures of the States of the Union or to Conventions of the people in each of the States of the Union?  Why doesn’t Article V mention amendment by judicial “interpretation”?  If the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, Article V makes little or no sense.  If the Constitution cannot be amended by judicial interpretation, Article V is rational.

How can Article VI Section 2 reasonably declare that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” if the Constitution is a “living document” that can mean anything or nothing at all at any given moment based on judicial “interpretation”?   How can we have a “supreme Law of the Land” by which Judges in every State shall be bound” if that Supreme Law is subject to constant change in the twinkling of a Supreme Court judge’s eye?

What about Article VI Section 3 which mandates that all of the members of the legislatures of the States of the Union and of the U.S. Congress, and all of the officers of the executive and judicial branches of the US and State of the Union governments “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution“?  How can anyone be bound by the terms of a constitution that’s a “living document” and therefore subject to constant and unpredictable change on a moment-by-moment basis?  If the Constitution can be changed by the judiciary at any moment, isn’t taking an oath to be bound to support “this Constitution” somewhat like signing your name to a blank check for an amount that someone else can supply?

The Constitution of the United States was intended to protect the people of the States of the Union from the federal government in general and from tyranny in particular.  It’s therefore no surprised that the cops, presidents, legislatures and the courts are persistently amending or ignoring the People’s Law–the Constitution and other Organic Laws–to grant themselves immunities from being held liable to the People’s laws they once swore to support and enforce.

Insofar as the government declares that it enjoys immunities from being “bound” to obey the People’s Law (the Constitution, etc.), how is the government any different from a biker’s gang that claims to enjoy exemptions from the government’s laws because the bikers are tough, violent and wild?

Immunity from the law and exemptions from the law are both evidence of gangsters and the “special interest” mentality that all gangs embrace.

Insofar as the cops claim immunity from the People’s law, the cops are gangsters.

Insofar as the government claims immunity from the People’s law, the government is composed of one or more groups of gangsters.

The growing conflict between Blacks and police is the result of two gangs, many of whose members believe they are “special” and entitled to be exempt from the law.  The Blacks justify criminal behavior as necessary to survive in a racist world.  The cops justify their own criminal conduct by being forced to work in a world where criminals (like some Blacks) are constantly present.  The violence we have seen, and will see, perpetrated by each gang against the other is ultimately traceable to the idea that both groups should be above the law.  The cops kill Blacks who think they’re above the law.  The Blacks will kill cops who think they are above the law.

To the extent any of us claim exemption from liability under the law, that exemption will ultimately result in violence.  If we don’t want that violence, we need to stop exempting ourselves, our races, our cops and our government from equal liability under the law.  That principle applies to Blacks, to cops, to politicians and even to ordinary people.  We must all be equally liable under the law.  No immunities.  No exemptions.