As Ayn Rand has written, “There is only one fundamental right. . a man’s right to his own life.” (“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.) The Holzers have written, “It is the right to life that conscription denies.” (“The ...
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

HENRY MARK HOLZER

LEGAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY

www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com


The "Living Constitution" and the right to die.

As Ayn Rand has written, “There is only one fundamental right . . . a man’s right to his own life.” (“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.) The Holzers have written, “It is the right to life that conscription denies.” (“The Constitution and the Draft,” The Objectivist, November 1967.) 

In the 1918 draft case of Arver v. United States (Selective Draft Law Cases), the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upheld the constitutionality of conscription because “every citizen is bound to serve and defend the State . . . every citizen or subject is obliged to serve the State . . . [and thus] the sovereign has the right . . . to conscript whom he pleases.” 

In Arver, the Supreme Court repudiated Americans’ right to their own lives. 

Seventy-nine years later in the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, the same Court ruled there is no provision of the Constitution that protects the right to die. 

My new book deconstructs the Supreme Court’s Glucksberg decision, proving it is altruism, collectivism, and statism that deprives us of our right to die. 

The “Living Constitution” and the Right to Die employs extensive Supreme Court quotations from 1823 to 1997 revealing that and how the Constitution was corrupted, especially the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Please forward this email to anyone you think might be interested, especially lawyers. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Preface. Arver v. United States (Selective Draft Law Cases.) 

1. Introduction. 
2. Definitions. 
3. Historical context. 
4. Magna carta; Fourteenth Amendment; Procedural Due Process. 
5. “Substantive” Due Process. 
6. “Incorporation” of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
7. Poe v. Ullman: Birth of Griswold v. Connecticut. 
8. Griswold v. Connecticut: Prelude to Roe v. Wade. 
9. Roe v. Wade: Overture to Compassion in Dying v. Washington. 
10. Compassion in Dying v. Washington; federal district court. 
11. Compassion in Dying v. Washington; federal circuit court. 
12. Compassion in Dying v. Washington; federal circuit court, en banc. 
13. Washington v. Glucksberg; Supreme Court of the United States.
14. Ninth Amendment and Unenumerated Rights. 
15. Conclusion. 

Notes 
Appendix A. Eleven Right-to-Die” states. 
Appendix B. Deconstruction of New Mexico “Right-to-Die” statute. 
Other non-fiction books by the author. 
Acknowledgements. 
Henry Mark Holzer.

 * * * 

 The “Living Constitution” and the Right to Die” (146 pages) is available on Kindle ($2.99) and in print from Amazon ($9.99).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09RTPB6MV/
       
 

New Jon Willard Novel

A Fool for a client? New York criminal defense lawyer Jon Willard made a cameo appearance in Erika Holzer’s novel Eye for an Eye. Willard was then the hero/protagonist in Henry Mark Holzer’s The Paladin Curse, and now in the third Willard novel the lawyer finds himself attacked by a conspiracy of lawyers and judges seeking to have him disbarred. Even Jon Willard wonders whether in deciding to represent himself, he has “a fool for a client.” A Fool for a Client? is available at Amazon.com, on other reading devices, and will soon be in a print edition. Coming in 2022 is the next Jon Willard novel, set in New Mexico and based on what occurred some five-hundred years ago. Also in 2020 is Henry Mark Holzer’s newest non-fiction book. Its working title is THE ULTIMATE CIVIL LIBERTY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DIE, AND WHY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DENIED IT EXISTS.

       
 

The Nays to Texas

 

Contrary to the reporting and other popular belief, the Supreme Court did NOT NOT take the Texas election case.

 

The court took jurisdiction, and then denied Texas’ request  to “file a bill of complaint.”

 

Because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

 

In other words, Texas suffered a “lack of standing [to sue] under Article III of the Constitution,” as I and other constitutional law specialists predicted.

 

Lastly, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas dissented because in their view the Supreme Court does “not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

 

I, and others, agree with the dissent – properly pleaded original jurisdiction complaints must be taken by the Court, and once taken can be dealt with pursuant to Constitutional and statutory procedural and substantive principles – but as I have said above, the Court did take jurisdiction because I can’t see how they could otherwise have denied Texas’ motion by making a substantive decision on standing to sue, also an Article III provision with a long history of resolving whether a “case or controversy” has been presented.

       
 

Twelve irrefutable minutes explaining who will be our next president

 

Remember, some people suffer capital punishment, and others very, very long prison terms, based on circumstantial evidence. You may have to paste it into your address box. If that doesn’t work, go to: YouTube Patrick Basham Mark Levin. The interview is only 12 minutes long.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HPRTBxgII  

       
 

UNJUST BLAME? The Korean War, The Chinese Intervention, and Douglas MacArthur

After many years of research and writing, I have completed a book—not The Paladin Curse, a novel written with Erika Holzer, which I announced earlier this week—but one which will not be of interest to most readers in general, nor most of those who receive this occasional blog.

The book’s title is UNJUST BLAME? The Korean War, the Chinese Intervention, and Douglas MacArthur.

I am pleased to reproduce the Table of Contents, and several of the Introduction’s opening paragraphs:

CONTENTS

 Part I: The North Korean Invasion

 1.      World War II

2.     From the end of one war, to the eve of another

3.     Writing off Korea

4.     Stalin, Mao, Kim—and Korea

5.     Republic of Korea Army vs. North Korea People’s Army

6.     The North Korean invasion

 Part II: The Chinese Intervention

 7.     MacArthur’s Rubicon: The 38th Parallel

8.     Eighth Army, X Corps, and the Chinese “First Phase Offensive”

9.     The Chinese “Second Phase Offensive”: Part I

10.  The Chinese “Second Phase Offensive”: Part II

11.   Attacking in another direction

12.  Assessing the blame

 Conclusion 

Notes

INTRODUCTION

  

This book is about the blame that for over a three-quarters century has been heaped on General of the Army Douglas MacArthur for the Chinese Communist intervention in the Korean War during October-November 1950, resulting in X Corps and Eighth Army being driven south from the vicinity of the Yalu River to the line of the 38th Parallel.

 The argument of this book is that blaming MacArthur is unjust because

American civilian and military authorities—organizations—had failed to: (1)  Learn, that from the Chinese perspective, the Communists had compelling reasons to intervene; (2)  Anticipate, that because of those reasons, and the way the Chinese would have to fight, their intervention needed to be on a massive scale, and (3)  Adapt, American forces’ response to the Chinese strategy and tactics.

 

The result was an organizationally-caused military misfortune. Disastrous in many respects, yes. But not the fault of any one man, let alone General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

 

**********

If any of the recipients of today’s blog are acquainted with a veteran who served in Korea between June 1950 and July 1953, or with some military history buffs, I would appreciate your sending them this announcement.

 

The entire book is on my website—www.henrymarkholzer.com—and this link should take an interested reader to it: click here

 

The book is 167 pages, and offered at no charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
 

 

Safely Unsubscribe ArchivesPreferencesContactSubscribePrivacy