WASHINGTON — In a land­mark rul­ing today, the Supreme Court found 9–0 that the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment was in vio­la­tion of antitrust laws and ordered it bro­ken up immediately.

Writing for the major­ity, Antonin Scalia had this to say. His words are offered with­out fur­ther comment.


The def­i­n­i­tion of a monop­oly is well-​​established and has been noted by prece­dent in this and other courts. While it has been argued — elo­quently — that the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment is an elected body which has been cho­sen by the peo­ple, we find to the con­trary in sev­eral impor­tant respects.

To begin, the insti­tu­tion of the Electoral College effec­tively bars indi­vid­u­als from directly choos­ing a chief exec­u­tive. Furthermore, this exec­u­tive is insu­lated from con­se­quences of his or her own actions when fur­ther elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the peo­ple refuse to act on the inter­ests of those whom they puta­tively rep­re­sent. Thus we find that the claims of rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment by the United States fed­eral body are spurious.

Furthermore, as has been argued per­sua­sively, monied inter­ests have become the dom­i­nant fac­tor in United States fed­eral deci­sions, most notably in the last half decade, but on an increas­ing level for more than fifty years. This puts the government’s actions out­side pure claims of rep­re­sen­ta­tion; in truth it seems that more than half the time the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment is act­ing solely in the inter­ests of agen­cies in pos­ses­sion of eight and more fig­ures in money assets.

Monopolies exist in a cli­mate anti­thet­i­cal to free trade and open cap­i­tal­ism; a key mark of a monop­oly is that it asserts hos­tile con­trol over other agen­cies and over­takes them in the name of increas­ing its own bot­tom line. Recent actions by the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment toward other regimes have shown it is inter­ested pri­mar­ily in hos­tile takeovers of other groups, all to bet­ter its own fis­cal inter­ests — again, clearly behav­ing not in a rep­re­sen­ta­tive fash­ion, but rather in a business-​​oriented one.

For this rea­son we find that the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment is both a cor­po­rate, for-​​profit inter­est; and that it is behav­ing in a man­ner which clearly vio­lates its own antitrust statutes.

We there­fore order that the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment be bro­ken up into fifty-​​one seg­ments, each with loci in extant state capi­tols plus the District of Columbia. This will allow cit­i­zens of the baby Feds to choose which ver­sion of gov­ern­ment they pre­fer sim­ply by mov­ing to a dif­fer­ent state, and will effec­tively per­ma­nently dis­band the crush­ing, over­ar­ch­ing con­trol the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment has exerted upon indi­vid­ual lib­er­ties and free­doms, par­tic­u­larly in recent years.

Border treaties, cur­rency exchanges and com­merce will be worked out over time but will not be a mat­ter for this Court, as it has dis­solved itself in the process of dis­man­tling the United States fed­eral government.

So entered.


No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.