This is not a Twitter page of a self-aggrandizing teenager. Looks like it, though. But, this is a Twitter page of a supposedly serious CNN journalist, son and brother of two New York State Governors, Chris Cuomo.
I wrote on this blog about mental abilities of Chris Cuomo, brother to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and mouthpiece for CNN (a media network supporting Hillary Clinton).
Chris Cuomo showed himself as a shining star of intellect, as well as integrity when he tried to corner Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore with claims that he is disregarding "the Law of the Land" (a U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage).
Of course, had Chris Cuomo actually and truly read the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn as an attorney to obey, uphold and enforce, he would have learnt that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause and are, thus, not the "Law of the Land".
Roy Moore actually came out with the upper hand over Chris Cuomo, intellectually and as a matter of integrity, when he instead cornered Chris Cuomo with a question whether Chris Cuomo, had he been a judge during the times of slavery, would have followed the shameful Dred Scott decision where the U.S. Supreme Court blatantly upheld the status of African Americans as not human beings, but property.
Chris Cuomo admitted that he would have followed the Dred Scott decision because, in his view, it was "the Law of the Land" at that time - which it wasn't, for the same reason as U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not the Law of the Land today, they are not part of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Let's see what exactly did Chris Cuomo, an attorney sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, said he would have followed as "The Law of the Land".
Here is the Dred Scott decision, in all its stark glory.
Here is the procedural history of the case:
"Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question."
So, the lower court actually GRANTED Dred Scott and his family freedom.
Yet, the State Supreme Court reversed that judgment, and Dred Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is what Dred Scott, a black man, alleges against John F.A. Sanford, a white man:
"The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children."
Eliza was age 14, and Lizzie was age 7, according to the case.
Straightforward, isn't it? A white man assaulted a black man, his wife and two daughters.
So, what does the white man have to say in his defense? Does he deny the assault on four people?
Of course, not. Because, for John F. A. Sandford, Dred Scott, his wife Harriet Scott, and his daughters Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, are not people. They are property, no more.
"And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action, and each and every of them, (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid."
John F. A. Sanford actually admitted to the assault, in this way:
"That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do.
3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted in the same manner, and in virtue of the same legal right."
Remember, Chris Cuomo would have upheld the "lawful right" of John F. A. Sanford to assault (no, to "gently lay hands upon") a man, a woman and two children.
Chris Cuomo is lucky that he is white. The question that Roy Moore asked was skin-color-specific. Because, had Chris Cuomo been black, he would not have had a choice of whether he AS A JUDGE would have followed Dred Scott.
He would be in the position of Dred Scott, and on the receiving end of "gently laid hands" upon Chris Cuomo and his family members.
In Dred Scott, the decision that Chris Cuomo would have followed as the "Law of the Land", the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Taney, asked themselves a question:
"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution."
And, the court spoke of citizenship status not only of African American slaves, but also of free African Americans, descendants of those who were brought into the U.S. as slaves:
"The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."
Interestingly enough, in Dred Scott the U.S. Supreme Court gave a definition of "People of the United States" as a popular sovereign - the definition that, if you raise it in federal courts today, saying that People and not the government are the sovereign in the U.S. (I tried, personally), you will be sanctioned for frivolous conduct and ordered to pay your opponent's legal fees (was done to me).
Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott case said about people as the popular sovereign of the United States:
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives."
Then, the U.S. Supreme Court engages in the following discussion as to whether Dred Scott, his wife Harriet Scott and his daughters Eliza and Lizzie Scott belong to "people of the United States":
"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
THAT is what Chris Cuomo would have followed as "The Law of the Land".
Here is another question that was reviewed and resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott - which Cuomo would have enforced had he been a judge at that time, as "the Law of the Land":
"whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent?"
And this is the answer of the glorious jurists of the U.S. Supreme Court, all racist white men:
And, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a sordid list of laws from a variety of states supporting the above "opinion", as a basis of its decision, and put many, many, many, many words into the case in support of the principle - African Americans are not people, and do not have rights like other people.
I wonder if Chris Cuomo has actually read the case - it is long. Yet, when cornered by Judge Roy Moore, Cuomo admitted he would have followed the ruling of the case, as "Law of the Land".
Even though it was not the Law of the Land - never was.
A good principle announced by Chris Cuomo, brother of a governor and son of a governor - cower before power.
But, in the United States, before you cower before power - you first elect people into that position of power.
And you can just as well not do that.
Like, you can just as well not elect Hillary Clinton, the one that Chris Cuomo and CNN are supporting.
And, there is good reasons not to vote for her - like her e-mails published by WikiLeaks recently.
So, Cuomo, faithful to his employer who pays him for what Cuomo says to viewers and voters, made one more blunder.
Now Chris Cuomo tells its readers - do not read the original documents exposing Hillary Clinton published by WikiLeaks, because possessing the original is - according to Chris Cuomo - unlawful.
That's Chris Cuomo's who would have supported slavery and followed "the law" deeming African Americans as cattle, not people, who now supports Hillary Clinton who, in her turn, desperately tries to win black voters.
Good grief, do these people keep track of what they are saying out loud on camera?
So, Chris Cuomo who would have supported slavery as "law of the land" had he lived in 1854, says to CNN readers now - believe me, as interpreter of documents against Hillary Clinton, do not look at the actual documents themselves, because it is illegal TO LOOK (for you, not for Chris Cuomo, obviously).
Here it is, from the horse's - oops, Chris Cuomo's mouth. With innocent eyes Cuomo says something not only stupid, but legally wrong and appearing to seek to defraud voters, close to elections.
Believing somebody to read something correctly and to interpret it to you correctly, in order to inform your voting decisions requires quite a bit of faith in that person.
Of course, no person can claim even basic integrity if he tries to influence voters by blocking them from access to the original documents exposing misconduct of the candidate that that person adamantly supports. It is just another form of rigging elections.
But, Cuomo's integrity went down the drain even earlier than this "don't read WikiLeaks, believe me instead" stupidity. His integrity went down the drain much earlier, with Chris Cuomo's "Dred Scott" admission.
Did Chris Cuomo, an attorney, just engage in unethical conduct by giving legal advice - and incorrect legal advice at that - to multiple viewers?
Let's look at it in detail.
Chris Cuomo, a licensed attorney, told voters that they have no right to read WikiLeaks' materials exposing Hillary Clinton because it is illegal to possess them - and for the same reason the voters must inform themselves from CNN and Cuomo's interpretations of what is in those WikiLeaks materials.
First, one does not have to possess the document in order to read it online.
Second, Chris Cuomo did not exactly explain why it is illegal to possess documents exposed by WikiLeaks.
Because those materials were obtained through hacking?
But, once they entered the public domain, there is nothing illegal to have a copy of those materials - and Chris Cuomo did not specify what was the point of illegality in it. So, that was legal advice, and wrong legal advice at that, and legal advice given by a licensed attorney and brother of New York State Governor in support of the presidential candidate exposed in materials Cuomo tried to divert voters from.
Third, under the principle of equal protection of law and the rule of law, if it is illegal for one to possess anything, it is illegal for CNN and Chris Cuomo, too, unless CNN and Chris Cuomo, same as Hillary Clinton who they support, are above the law - but they are not formally so, not yet at least.
And, fourth, to believe CNN and Chris Cuomo to correctly interpret compromising material against the presidential candidate CNN and Cuomo supports requires a collective lobotomy.
Does CNN think that its readers are that stupid?
Is it worth it for CNN to keep in its employ the brother of a powerful (even if corrupt) New York politician - even if he produces, to put it politely, intellectual blunders - one after the other, one worse than the other?
Here is how Cuomo's intellectual abilities are characterized by anonymous commentators to the news about Cuomo urging not to read documents leaked by WikiLeaks:
Another question, probably, a rhetorical question given Cuomo's Daddy's and brother's last name that can cover anything, same as Clinton's last name - will Chris Cuomo be subjected to attorney discipline and criminal investigation for giving misleading legal advice to voters, and thus rigging elections for Hillary Clinton?
And, I am not the only one to ask that question:
Chris Cuomo, most likely, did not read the entirety of Dred Scott case before he blundered that - had he been a judge in 1850s, he would have to follow it as the "Law of the Land" (which it wasn't).
I bet that Chris Cuomo never read documents exposed by WikiLeaks, he instead bowed to the idea that CNN, his employer, supported Hillary Clinton, and interpretation of any documents against her may cost him a job.
So, the motto is "cower to power" which is Chris Cuomo's and many other people's modern understanding of "obeying the law".
Only, please, remember, that people who would have endorsed assaults upon a man, a woman and two children because they were not people, but cattle - according to the LEARNED opinion of several racist white males - those same individuals would have cowered to another "rule of law" ordered by another leader who LAWFULLY came to power: Hitler.
Kill all Jews, Gypsies and Slavs. And they killed. A lot. Following "the law". And following the logic just like Chris Cuomo did.
Such people have a simple definition.
They are cowards.
And you do not listen to cowards when deciding who will run your country for 4 years to come.
You read the damned thing yourself. And then vote.