One has to wonder... when an elected official or even a lowly E-1 being inducted into the Military takes their oath of office, promising fealty to the Constitution, how can they in good conscience later state that only the Courts may decide whether a law (or action) is "constitutional"? (And yes, I intended to use a lower-case "c" there.)
Recent reports from the Congressional Campaign Trails of candidates promising to cite the provision of the Constitution authorizing laws have been met with disdain by others.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/is-it-weird-for-congress-to-consider-the-constitutionality-of-legislation-before-voting-on-it/
If only despots push for greater and greater POWER, usurping such until forced to relinquish it, then our Congress, our State Legislatures, the bureaucrats that promulgate "rules" for us to follow are, for the most part, would-by tyrants. They act with the implicit cooperation of the Judiciary, which does not reign them in, to the reduction of our individual freedom.
Even more distressing is this: citizens who wish the freedom of others be restricted put them into office: they ignore the lessons of history at their own peril.
Think. Of what use is an oath if one cannot define it? The Constitution is what it is. It can be read for its clear, plain, and most obvious meaning and MUST be interpreted literally. Our government tell us that "ignorance of the law is no excust..."
It is we who should be telling them. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as are the treaties and the federal laws that are made as the Constitution directs and allows.
Should there be a treaty that infringes on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms... it is null and void on its face, because such a treaty purports to restrict and uninfringable Right. Likewise, laws which do the same are also void.
It is past time for We, The People to assert ourselves against our oppressive governments at all levels, petitioning for redress of one particular grievance: the fact that they have overstepped their authority, we're mad as Hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Watching this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWF3Ddr7vdc&feature=player_embedded ) offers a glimpse into the psyche of at least one cop.
Note the nightstick on the cop's hip as he comes into frame at the 45 second mark. The handle on that thing closely (much too closely, methinks) resembles something one would find at a fetish shop.
Is someone overcompensating?
Note the nightstick on the cop's hip as he comes into frame at the 45 second mark. The handle on that thing closely (much too closely, methinks) resembles something one would find at a fetish shop.
Is someone overcompensating?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Old McDonald Had a... gun?
Now that the Supreme Court's ruling is finally out on the 2nd Amendment, it's time to really incorporate the Constitution.
Imagine a nation where the actual words of the Constitution, and their original, plain and simple meaning actually drove our various states' legislative processes, as well as the courts' interpretation thereof.
Imagine a nation where each state recognized the official acts of the other states.
Imagine a nation where our citizens actually received equal protection under the law, even protection from oppressive governments.
Would the first official act of each state, the adoption of a State Constitution, be recognized by the other states?
Would the Rights of the Citizens, as recognized in those documents, then be given equal weight across all of the states?
If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the combined language of the various 2nd Amendment declarations from all fifty states would then be merged together, recognized by the states (and the federal government), and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be expanded to its greatest level.
In similar fashion, the Right to speak, to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress, to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, to be compensated for takings, to defend one's life, to rebel against slavery in any form: these Rights would be equally enforced at their greatest scope resulting in maximum freedom for the individual.
In a nation where the governments received their Powers from the consent of the governed, the citizen is to remain the ultimate "sovereign"... not in anarchy or abuse of his neighbor, but definitely in control of his government. When the founding documents of a Government recognize a Right, that Right must never be abridged.
Keeping and Bearing Arms must not be infringed.
Murder, robbery, intimidation to prevent others from exercising their Rights... when facilitated with a firearm or any other weapon: these are the acts which the people, through their governments, may prohibit and punish, not the mere act of possession.
A firearm is a tool. Like an axe, a hammer, or even a printing press, it can be used for good or for evil. In like manner, the possession of a tool should never be illegal, only an act may be illegal, and if the act includes the use of any dangerous tool, the punishment of the law can and should be more severe, for the use shows a disregard, not only for the victim's enjoyment of property, but for the victim's life.
Imagine a nation where the actual words of the Constitution, and their original, plain and simple meaning actually drove our various states' legislative processes, as well as the courts' interpretation thereof.
Imagine a nation where each state recognized the official acts of the other states.
Imagine a nation where our citizens actually received equal protection under the law, even protection from oppressive governments.
Would the first official act of each state, the adoption of a State Constitution, be recognized by the other states?
Would the Rights of the Citizens, as recognized in those documents, then be given equal weight across all of the states?
If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the combined language of the various 2nd Amendment declarations from all fifty states would then be merged together, recognized by the states (and the federal government), and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be expanded to its greatest level.
In similar fashion, the Right to speak, to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress, to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, to be compensated for takings, to defend one's life, to rebel against slavery in any form: these Rights would be equally enforced at their greatest scope resulting in maximum freedom for the individual.
In a nation where the governments received their Powers from the consent of the governed, the citizen is to remain the ultimate "sovereign"... not in anarchy or abuse of his neighbor, but definitely in control of his government. When the founding documents of a Government recognize a Right, that Right must never be abridged.
Keeping and Bearing Arms must not be infringed.
Murder, robbery, intimidation to prevent others from exercising their Rights... when facilitated with a firearm or any other weapon: these are the acts which the people, through their governments, may prohibit and punish, not the mere act of possession.
A firearm is a tool. Like an axe, a hammer, or even a printing press, it can be used for good or for evil. In like manner, the possession of a tool should never be illegal, only an act may be illegal, and if the act includes the use of any dangerous tool, the punishment of the law can and should be more severe, for the use shows a disregard, not only for the victim's enjoyment of property, but for the victim's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)