Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the framers never intended that the States or the People need “ask” the Federal government to support the Constitution. The States and the People have a right to “demand” and “compel” their servants strictly follow and support the Constitution — with them being guaranteed the means and tools so that they will be successful in compelling such obedience and, if necessary, defend themselves from lawless aggressions from the governing head.

 

What sense is there that such means and tools be provided and guaranteed only to never be regularly used or held over the heads of their servants as a stern warning and threat as to the dire consequences of non-compliance and FAITHFUL obedience to their oath of office — above all, to willingly allow, if not encouraging, their only and last means of defense to be simply removed or regulated away from their possession?

 

Did not Mr. Davie on July 20 in convention urge, say, “If he [chief magistrate] be not impeachable whilst in office, he will SPARE NO EFFORTS or MEANS WHATEVER to GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.”

 

Did not Mr. Garry urge, “the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A BAD one ought to be KEPT IN FEAR OF THEM. He hoped the maxim would NEVER be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.”

 

Did not Mr. Randolf add, “The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED. The Executive will have great opportunitys of ABUSING HIS POWER; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the PUBLIC MONEY will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections.”

 

Was not the word “high” removed from before the word “misdemeanor” in convention so as to NOT have a “technical meaning too limited” within the context of Art II, sec. 4 on the power of impeachment of the executive? — to wit, changed from “high misdemeanor” to “other crime” and then to simply “misdemeanor” in order to “comprehend ALL proper cases”?

 

Are not justices meant to be impeachable for ANYTHING that can be considered bad behavior?

 

Did not Hamilton in fp26 make plain, “Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but SUSPICIOUS and JEALOUS guardians of the RIGHTS of the citizens AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if ANY THING improper appears, to SOUND THE ALARM to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.”

 

Now, who is supposed to be threatening whom and who is supposed to be making sure who stays within their proper bounds and who should be punishing who?

1 year, 2 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

The States are pathetic. Language like "a personal firearm,... THAT REMAINS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE" is laughable.

 

These absurd State bills do more harm than good to themselves and others—bills of surrender and submission that do nothing whatsoever to send the needed blunt message to their agent that encroachments upon their sovereignty, rights & jurisdiction shall no longer be tolerated. Instead, the language of these bills is akin to a cowering request, w/ a rider: "oh please don't get upset and hurt us [any more than you already have]".

 

They suggest the States are not the sovereigns but rather the Federal govt is the sovereign over them—as if the States are mere colonies created by the Federal govt and the People are its subjects to be governed; that the States aren't meant to trade whatever they please without the consent of Congress; that Congress has the whole power of legislation over them; and, worse, Congress can regulate non-commercial traffic of whatever sort between State and State. In fact, using proper construction of the Constitution's plain words, considering ALL parts TOGETHER (not expounding ala cart) and taking into consideration the fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based and fundamental purpose of UNION, the complete opposite is obvious.

 

To suggest Congress has such authority over the States is to suggest Congress can disarm the States, at its pleasure and render the 2nd Amendment utterly impotent and without meaning using embargos & blockades under the pretext of regulating commerce, and under the same pretext cut off or restrict the manufacture & sale of ARMS, etc by imposing intrusive regulations & licensing of raw materials and parts needed for manufacture and ownership.

 

Considering the power to impose such DIRECT prohibitions and trade restrictions is not in the power to regulate commerce but the power of war, Congress is actually committing aggressions against the States using its war powers to regulate trade and manufactures. Is this what the States intended when they GRANTED and entrusted their AGENT with these powers—to use them for what was never intended and commit aggressions against us?

 

Consider the power to regulate commerce as it stood on Sept. 15, 1787 during debates as to whether a clause should be inserted to restrain the States from "laying tonnage":

 

--Mr. Govr Morris. The States are NOT restrained from laying tonnage as the Constitution now Stands.

 

--Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained depends on the extent of the power to regulate commerce...but seem to EXCLUDE this power of the States.

 

--Mr. Sherman. The power of the U.S. to regulate trade being supreme can controul INTERFERENCES of State regulations WHEN such happens; so there is no danger to be apprehended from CONCURRENT jurisdiction.

 

--Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and the States ought to have nothing to do with it.

 

It passed in the negative, but was REMOULDED and then passed as: "No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage..."

 

So, if the power to regulate commerce was intended to be a broad discretionary power, then why put such explicit language in the Constitution unless the power to regulate commerce was THE OPPOSITE. This alone provides the plain proof beyond any doubt that the power to regulate commerce is NOT a broad discretionary power but a VERY NARROW ONE—a power that the framers considered to be safe without having to add limitations as was needed for other more dangerous powers.

 

But let's not stop with just this proof. There are many more, with nothing in the whole works of the convention suggesting anything contrary.

 

Consider the liberty of the Press, that FAILED to get inserted into the main body of the Constitution for good reason, made plain by Mr Sherman, Sept 14, 1787—a right supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, which we know is not a constraint on the power to regulate commerce (since that power does not extend directly to the objects themselves or their manufacturer), but on the power to tax. Even though Congress was never granted power to regulate objects DIRECTLY (other than those few expressly enumerated), it nevertheless still has power to regulate objects INDIRECTLY using indirect means, to wit, via excises:

 

--Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Gerry, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”

 

--Mr. Sherman. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does NOT extend to the Press.

 

On the question, to insert that declaration: it FAILED.

 

We now have two exceptional proofs that the power to regulate commerce does NOT extend directly to the objects themselves; for, if it did, there would be every cause for alarm and the declaration to preserve the liberty of the Press would have been inserted.

 

A State, being a sovereign, has a NATURAL right to regulate its own commerce within its own jurisdictions even to extinction if it chooses, but when its regulations interfere with the trade of another State, THAT is when Congress has a duty to intervene and free up the channels of commerce—NOT as an aggressor imposing interferences that hinders, favors one State over another or chokes it off—but, leavening to the States to decide for themselves what they want or don't want to trade with each other.

 

Most importantly, consider this: Since the power to regulate commerce was unmistakably inserted for the purpose of peacefully facilitating commerce, then how can Congress, or any branch of the govt for that matter, justify doing the complete opposite and be the source and facilitator of the very kinds of interferences and aggressions that it, for which that power was granted, was meant to guard against—using that power, instead, as a weapon in an oppressive tyrannical manner against the States, and worse, to demand new powers not granted. Not clear on this important point? Let us go to Tuesday, August 21, 1787 and look at the denied power to tax exports—a constraint placed on taxing powers:

 

--Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to COMPEL the States to comply with the will of the Genl Govt, and to grant it any NEW POWERS which might be DEMANDED.... It will ENABLE the Genl Govt to OPPRESS the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.

 

So, the prohibition was inserted and to this day denied Congress, even though Congress BLATANTLY violates it. What sense, though, does it make that such a precaution be inserted knowing that the power to regulate commerce would render it moot—unless, of course, the power to regulate commerce is actually VERY NARROW so as having no possibility of encroaching upon and rendering the prohibition ineffective.

 

Considering what is being defended—the 2nd Amendment, no less—it's amazing that the only wording that the States can seem to fashion is more a surrender than a defense of their sovereignty and rights—words carefully chosen and arranged so as not to upset their agent that has turned adversary.

1 year, 5 months ago on Franklin County, Indiana Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance

Reply

The States are pathetic. Language like "a personal firearm,... THAT REMAINS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE" is laughable.

 

These absurd State bills do more harm than good to themselves and others—bills of surrender and submission that do nothing whatsoever to send the needed blunt message to their agent that encroachments upon their sovereignty, rights & jurisdiction shall no longer be tolerated. Instead, the language of these bills is akin to a cowering request, w/ a rider: "oh please don't get upset and hurt us [any more than you already have]".

 

They suggest the States are not the sovereigns but rather the Federal govt is the sovereign over them—as if the States are mere colonies created by the Federal govt and the People are its subjects to be governed; that the States aren't meant to trade whatever they please without the consent of Congress; that Congress has the whole power of legislation over them; and, worse, Congress can regulate non-commercial traffic of whatever sort between State and State. In fact, using proper construction of the Constitution's plain words, considering ALL parts TOGETHER (not expounding ala cart) and taking into consideration the fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based and fundamental purpose of UNION, the complete opposite is obvious.

 

To suggest Congress has such authority over the States is to suggest Congress can disarm the States, at its pleasure and render the 2nd Amendment utterly impotent and without meaning using embargos & blockades under the pretext of regulating commerce, and under the same pretext cut off or restrict the manufacture & sale of ARMS, etc by imposing intrusive regulations & licensing of raw materials and parts needed for manufacture and ownership.

 

Considering the power to impose such DIRECT prohibitions and trade restrictions is not in the power to regulate commerce but the power of war, Congress is actually committing aggressions against the States using its war powers to regulate trade and manufactures. Is this what the States intended when they GRANTED and entrusted their AGENT with these powers—to use them for what was never intended and commit aggressions against us?

 

Consider the power to regulate commerce as it stood on Sept. 15, 1787 during debates as to whether a clause should be inserted to restrain the States from "laying tonnage":

 

--Mr. Govr Morris. The States are NOT restrained from laying tonnage as the Constitution now Stands.

 

--Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained depends on the extent of the power to regulate commerce...but seem to EXCLUDE this power of the States.

 

--Mr. Sherman. The power of the U.S. to regulate trade being supreme can controul INTERFERENCES of State regulations WHEN such happens; so there is no danger to be apprehended from CONCURRENT jurisdiction.

 

--Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and the States ought to have nothing to do with it.

 

It passed in the negative, but was REMOULDED and then passed as: "No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage..."

 

So, if the power to regulate commerce was intended to be a broad discretionary power, then why put such explicit language in the Constitution unless the power to regulate commerce was THE OPPOSITE. This alone provides the plain proof beyond any doubt that the power to regulate commerce is NOT a broad discretionary power but a VERY NARROW ONE—a power that the framers considered to be safe without having to add limitations as was needed for other more dangerous powers.

 

But let's not stop with just this proof. There are many more, with nothing in the whole works of the convention suggesting anything contrary.

 

Consider the liberty of the Press, that FAILED to get inserted into the main body of the Constitution for good reason, made plain by Mr Sherman, Sept 14, 1787—a right supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, which we know is not a constraint on the power to regulate commerce (since that power does not extend directly to the objects themselves or their manufacturer), but on the power to tax. Even though Congress was never granted power to regulate objects DIRECTLY (other than those few expressly enumerated), it nevertheless still has power to regulate objects INDIRECTLY using indirect means, to wit, via excises:

 

--Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Gerry, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”

 

--Mr. Sherman. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does NOT extend to the Press.

 

On the question, to insert that declaration: it FAILED.

 

We now have two exceptional proofs that the power to regulate commerce does NOT extend directly to the objects themselves; for, if it did, there would be every cause for alarm and the declaration to preserve the liberty of the Press would have been inserted.

 

A State, being a sovereign, has a NATURAL right to regulate its own commerce within its own jurisdictions even to extinction if it chooses, but when its regulations interfere with the trade of another State, THAT is when Congress has a duty to intervene and free up the channels of commerce—NOT as an aggressor imposing interferences that hinders, favors one State over another or chokes it off—but, leavening to the States to decide for themselves what they want or don't want to trade with each other.

 

Most importantly, consider this: Since the power to regulate commerce was unmistakably inserted for the purpose of peacefully facilitating commerce, then how can Congress, or any branch of the govt for that matter, justify doing the complete opposite and be the source and facilitator of the very kinds of interferences and aggressions that it, for which that power was granted, was meant to guard against—using that power, instead, as a weapon in an oppressive tyrannical manner against the States, and worse, to demand new powers not granted. Not clear on this important point? Let us go to Tuesday, August 21, 1787 and look at the denied power to tax exports—a constraint placed on taxing powers:

 

--Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to COMPEL the States to comply with the will of the Genl Govt, and to grant it any NEW POWERS which might be DEMANDED.... It will ENABLE the Genl Govt to OPPRESS the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.

 

So, the prohibition was inserted and to this day denied Congress, even though Congress BLATANTLY violates it. What sense, though, does it make that such a precaution be inserted knowing that the power to regulate commerce would render it moot—unless, of course, the power to regulate commerce is actually VERY NARROW so as having no possibility of encroaching upon and rendering the prohibition ineffective.

 

Considering what is being defended—the 2nd Amendment, no less—it's amazing that the only wording that the States can seem to fashion is more a surrender than a defense of their sovereignty and rights—words carefully chosen and arranged so as not to upset their agent that has turned adversary.

1 year, 5 months ago on Arizona Senate Bill Proposes Jail Time for Violations of the 2nd Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Reply

The States are pathetic. Language like "a personal firearm,... THAT REMAINS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE" is laughable.

 

These absurd State bills do more harm than good to themselves and others—bills of surrender and submission that do nothing whatsoever to send the needed blunt message to their agent that encroachments upon their sovereignty, rights & jurisdiction shall no longer be tolerated. Instead, the language of these bills is akin to a cowering request, w/ a rider: "oh please don't get upset and hurt us [any more than you already have]".

 

They suggest the States are not the sovereigns but rather the Federal govt is the sovereign over them—as if the States are mere colonies created by the Federal govt and the People are its subjects to be governed; that the States aren't meant to trade whatever they please without the consent of Congress; that Congress has the whole power of legislation over them; and, worse, Congress can regulate non-commercial traffic of whatever sort between State and State. In fact, using proper construction of the Constitution's plain words, considering ALL parts TOGETHER (not expounding ala cart) and taking into consideration the fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based and fundamental purpose of UNION, the complete opposite is obvious.

 

To suggest Congress has such authority over the States is to suggest Congress can disarm the States, at its pleasure and render the 2nd Amendment utterly impotent and without meaning using embargos & blockades under the pretext of regulating commerce, and under the same pretext cut off or restrict the manufacture & sale of ARMS, etc by imposing intrusive regulations & licensing of raw materials and parts needed for manufacture and ownership.

 

Considering the power to impose such DIRECT prohibitions and trade restrictions is not in the power to regulate commerce but the power of war, Congress is actually committing aggressions against the States using its war powers to regulate trade and manufactures. Is this what the States intended when they GRANTED and entrusted their AGENT with these powers—to use them for what was never intended and commit aggressions against us?

 

Consider the power to regulate commerce as it stood on Sept. 15, 1787 during debates as to whether a clause should be inserted to restrain the States from "laying tonnage":

 

--Mr. Govr Morris. The States are NOT restrained from laying tonnage as the Constitution now Stands.

 

--Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained depends on the extent of the power to regulate commerce...but seem to EXCLUDE this power of the States.

 

--Mr. Sherman. The power of the U.S. to regulate trade being supreme can controul INTERFERENCES of State regulations WHEN such happens; so there is no danger to be apprehended from CONCURRENT jurisdiction.

 

--Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and the States ought to have nothing to do with it.

 

It passed in the negative, but was REMOULDED and then passed as: "No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage..."

 

So, if the power to regulate commerce was intended to be a broad discretionary power, then why put such explicit language in the Constitution unless the power to regulate commerce was THE OPPOSITE. This alone provides the plain proof beyond any doubt that the power to regulate commerce is NOT a broad discretionary power but a VERY NARROW ONE—a power that the framers considered to be safe without having to add limitations as was needed for other more dangerous powers.

 

But let's not stop with just this proof. There are many more, with nothing in the whole works of the convention suggesting anything contrary.

 

Consider the liberty of the Press, that FAILED to get inserted into the main body of the Constitution for good reason, made plain by Mr Sherman, Sept 14, 1787—a right supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, which we know is not a constraint on the power to regulate commerce (since that power does not extend directly to the objects themselves or their manufacturer), but on the power to tax. Even though Congress was never granted power to regulate objects DIRECTLY (other than those few expressly enumerated), it nevertheless still has power to regulate objects INDIRECTLY using indirect means, to wit, via excises:

 

--Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Gerry, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”

 

--Mr. Sherman. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does NOT extend to the Press.

 

On the question, to insert that declaration: it FAILED.

 

We now have two exceptional proofs that the power to regulate commerce does NOT extend directly to the objects themselves; for, if it did, there would be every cause for alarm and the declaration to preserve the liberty of the Press would have been inserted.

 

A State, being a sovereign, has a NATURAL right to regulate its own commerce within its own jurisdictions even to extinction if it chooses, but when its regulations interfere with the trade of another State, THAT is when Congress has a duty to intervene and free up the channels of commerce—NOT as an aggressor imposing interferences that hinders, favors one State over another or chokes it off—but, leavening to the States to decide for themselves what they want or don't want to trade with each other.

 

Most importantly, consider this: Since the power to regulate commerce was unmistakably inserted for the purpose of peacefully facilitating commerce, then how can Congress, or any branch of the govt for that matter, justify doing the complete opposite and be the source and facilitator of the very kinds of interferences and aggressions that it, for which that power was granted, was meant to guard against—using that power, instead, as a weapon in an oppressive tyrannical manner against the States, and worse, to demand new powers not granted. Not clear on this important point? Let us go to Tuesday, August 21, 1787 and look at the denied power to tax exports—a constraint placed on taxing powers:

 

--Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to COMPEL the States to comply with the will of the Genl Govt, and to grant it any NEW POWERS which might be DEMANDED.... It will ENABLE the Genl Govt to OPPRESS the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.

 

So, the prohibition was inserted and to this day denied Congress, even though Congress BLATANTLY violates it. What sense, though, does it make that such a precaution be inserted knowing that the power to regulate commerce would render it moot—unless, of course, the power to regulate commerce is actually VERY NARROW so as having no possibility of encroaching upon and rendering the prohibition ineffective.

 

Considering what is being defended—the 2nd Amendment, no less—it's amazing that the only wording that the States can seem to fashion is more a surrender than a defense of their sovereignty and rights—words carefully chosen and arranged so as not to upset their agent that has turned adversary.

1 year, 5 months ago on PA State Representative Introduces Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun-Grabbing

Reply

@Patrick Henry@Jdangiel

For the States to be on the dole would require that the States somehow receive someone else's money. How can that be -- above all, for the poorer States whose money, property and land (stolen and confiscated by means of force and threat) is actually used AGAINST them (and the individuals that compose them) by the Federal government -- a governing body that was created to be not their judge and adversary but to be their agent?

 

For too many States, more money is being forcibly taken from within their boarders for not their mutual benefit, but for the benefit of other member States where there are more votes that can be more easily bought.

 

Is this for what the States joined this union? How can staying in this union or not defending themselves in any way be to their benefit -- or to stand idly by and allow their (supposed) agent spend them into oblivion?

 

Consider this: The credit that the Federal government is using (destroying) is not the Federal government's, but rather it is credit that was GRANTED to it and meant to be used for the PRESERVATION of the grantors -- NOT to be used for their destruction!

 

The problem is that the States that are being taken advantage of (and destroyed) by the Federal government seem to be just plain stupid -- about the dumbest States on this planet. They sit idle while the Federal government is used by other member States as an aggressive force against them to facilitate the thievery of their property, wealth, freedom, rights and sovereignty -- and the utter annihilation of their credit -- draining them of, and destroying everything that the Federal government was established to safeguard and preserve.

 

Instead of the Federal government using the powers granted and entrusted to it for the preservation of the States, it is doing everything to destroy them and render them insignificant.

 

Interestingly, the 2nd makes plain, as does the whole instrument, who ARE the masters and who IS the servant and agent -- and, who are the sovereigns and who is NOT the sovereign (with only few LIMITED sovereign powers granted to it by the true sovereigns) -- with the 2nd meant to GUARANTEE that the States have the tools and means to SUCCESSFULLY defend themselves from a tyrannical governing head; for, if the 2nd does not guarantee the tools and means for a successful defense, then it means nothing and is reduced to a mere decoration and a footnote that is nothing more than a mere passing mention of what were once free and sovereign States and are now no more than forgotten memories, reduce to mere colonies enslaved to be forever in service to its new master.

 

Whether anyone wants to admit it, the Federal government is at WAR with the States -- especially those that have not yet fallen to its will. But, without the remaining States putting up proper resistance and defense -- by exercising the rights and guarantees that they insisted upon for their own preservation by those that were first to join this Union -- they simply make it easy for their aggressors to facilitate their eventual fall and ultimate demise.

1 year, 6 months ago on Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Reply

To suspend or do away with the Constitution would be to suspend or do away with the Federal government and the Union; for, if not for the Constitution, the Federal government and this Union does not and cannot exist, unless a new Constitution is created and new compact formed in its place.

 

In other words, if the Federal government was to somehow suspend the Constitution, which cannot be fathomed as to legally how, it would be in effect suspending itself -- committing suicide and terminating its own existence -- because it is the Constitution that defines and creates this Union of sovereign States who are the true parties of the compact, with the Federal government, created by it, meant to serve as their agent for their mutual common defense and general welfare and not the other way around.

 

And, since the Federal government is not a party of the instrument and not a member of the compact that it forms -- not having existed beforehand and so impossible to have signed, ratified or done anything to give it life and is, instead, merely an artificial creature created from its words -- it has no say-so, and cannot have any say-so whatsoever, as to its own existence or as to its eventual death. Only the States and the People, under the Law of Nations upon which the instrument and compact is based, has the lawful authority and sovereign power to decide its content, its true meaning and its eventual fate.

 

If the Federal government were to somehow suspend or do away with the Constitution, it could only do so outside its lawful bounds and authority with usurped powers, against the Constitution and the Law of Nations, as an utterly lawless body that cannot possibly be acknowledged by any other respectable sovereign on this earth as being the least bit legitimate. It would be repugnant in every respect to the Constitution and the Law of Nations. And, for it to afterward by some chance be allowed to subsist and continue to operate, it would require the cooperation of and conspiracy with the rest of the world's sovereigns against ours; and, if they, as such, were to ever allow that to happen, it would make them just the same -- as lawless and as evil -- and, too, our adversary -- till which time those who are truly our friends acknowledge their mistake and have the courage and honor to come to our aid and give us the same courtesy and respect and assistance that any other sovereign nations that are in need deserves under the Law of Nations.

1 year, 6 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...

Reply

@findingthetruth

Notwithstanding the several State conventions, try FP26 - Hamilton:

 

"Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."

 

And, "Annals of Congress, Debates and Proceedings, 1789-1824" (First Congress), Monday, August 17. 1789. Here's a snip-it from that record...

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

 

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

 

Mr. Gerry.—This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

 

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a' militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown,...

 

...and so on...

 

More at this address:

 

memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

 

1 year, 6 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...

Reply

Excellent and spot on accurate.

 

This is also why the Supreme Court's invented "Doctrine if Incorporation" is utterly repugnant to the Constitution and cannot constitutionally exist or be constitutionally enforced.

 

Notwithstanding Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

 

Considering that there is no possible connection that can be made, as has done the Supreme Court, with that which are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses [on Congress]" which the People have a right to have obeyed by the Federal government and have enforced by their respective States (making plain it is not the States but the Federal government that is subordinate to the Bill of Rights, which also makes it unquestionably plain as to which are the sovereigns and the one that is not), there is nothing that can be construed in the 14th such that the restrictions placed on Congress by the Bill of Rights are to also be placed on the States, which is impossible anyway because of the construction of the instrument and FORM of government that was ratified.

 

For the States to somehow violate the 14th based on such an extraordinarily repugnant interpretation, one or more States would have to force or conspire with Congress to violate the Bill of Rights — or a State would have to fail to act when Congress overstepped its bounds.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress any sort of power to enforce the Bill of Rights on the States instead of on themselves [Congress].

 

Ironically, using a plain and proper interpretation, the 14th actually has a completely opposite meaning and enforcement. Instead of compelling the States to impose the Bill of Rights upon them selves, it compels Congress to compel the States to enforce the Bill of Rights upon Congress by compelling the States to NOT enforce laws made by Congress that plainly "abridges the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States" which must include those guarantees plainly spelled out in the Bill of Rights as "further declaratory and restrictive clauses [on Congress]".

 

So, what is really happening today is that the States are NOT violating the 14th by failing to enforce the Bill of Rights upon themselves, but for failing to ACTIVELY enforce the Bill of Rights on Congress (which is what the States are supposed to do anyway, even without the 14th); — because, by failing to ACTIVELY enforce the Bill of Rights on Congress is to directly violate that plain provision in the 14th that says, "No State shall make OR ENFORCE any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

 

Is not the omission of an act or the failure to act the same as enforcing by default — by allowing another [Congress] to enforce that which is plainly outside its bounds?

 

Are not the citizens meant to be immune, as is made plain by the Bill of Rights, from certain encroachments and abuses of powers by the Federal government? is this not what the 14th is reiterating?

 

Furthermore, what was made very plain in the first Congress during the debates over the Bill of Rights, is that the ratified FORM cannot be altered — even by amendment — without sending the instrument back to the People for re-ratification of the new FORM (as was done for the current constitution). This was a concern regarding the proposed amendments — that none could alter the ratified form; otherwise, the Constitution would have to be sent back to the People.

 

The way in which the 14th is being interpreted today, it unquestionably changes the ratified FORM; and so, the next question must be whether the 14th is constitutional in the first place or whether it can even be interpreted, at all, in such a way so as to not alter the ratified FORM.

1 year, 6 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply