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.
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!