Thursday, January 03, 2013

The Problem With Our Electorate

The Problem With Our Electorate
Before one is allowed to run for public office, one should be required to take a proficiency test to see if the candidate even knows what the US Constitution is…Shucks, when one applies for citizenship one must go to classes to learn to be a citizen, which includes the US Constitution. 

A legal brief opinion
By de Andréa
January 3, 2013

If one doesn’t know where one comes from, one has a difficult time knowing where one is going, or should be going.

It is truly amazing just how little our elected officials know about the US Constitution.  One would think because most are lawyers that they would have a better understanding of law.  But the Constitution is a very specific kind of law.  Just because one is a lawyer doesn’t mean they have a working knowledge of the American Constitution.  When I took “The American Constitution 101” at Heritage University we studied nothing but the history of America as it pertained to the development of the Constitution.  Without this, one cannot have a fundamental understanding of the most important law in our country.  I am now taking “The American Constitution 102”.  In doing so, I can see that without the history of the law I would be totally lost at even understanding what the content ,the text and the spirit of the law means.  I truly believe that this is the dilemma of our law makers.  They have no fundamental understanding of the American Constitution.  Incidentally, the Constitution was first read in its entirety to the full body of Congress in the year 2012, for the very first time in history.  It may have been the first time some of them had even heard the full constitution.  But it still doesn’t mean they have any understanding of it.  I believe this is becoming more and more evident as time moves on.  They now have less than an 8 percent approval rating - maybe this is why.  “Any law that violates the Constitution is no law…”-- John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court. 

Every individual with a sense of humanity detests seeing families destroyed, innocent children needlessly sacrificed, and promising lives snuffed out, as witnessed at Sandy Hook SchoolThe argument that reducing the number of guns will produce a safer society beguiles the public, promotes the deception of politician’s agenda, and fails to hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions.  But most of all, it does nothing to solve the problem.

Disarming innocent people does not make innocent people safer.  Yet, the Democratic liberal mob is even willing to punish innocent people for the acts of the wicked; this is why this country was designed by the Framers as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

While gun rights supporters and the US Supreme Court assert that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment of our Constitution, is an individual right like freedom of speech or religion. Gun opponents assert that the right pertains only to collective bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard.

First I will quote the full text of the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That’s it, nothing more, nothing less…

As I said earlier, the history of the Constitution is paramount to understanding it.  And yet we have gun opponents asserting that the right pertains only to collective government bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard.  Let’s take the last three first, the military - police - or the state National Guard.  As you have just read, no where does it say anything, allude to anything that vaguely represents the military, police, or National Guard.  It’s a no brainer even the Supreme Court ruled that it was an individual right.  They couldn’t do otherwise.  Another falsity is that the Second Amendment is and must be related to, the purpose of hunting.  Again I challenge you to find any reference in the entire Constitution to hunting or any of the kind.  The reason…it’s not there, why?  Because quite simply, it is not the purpose. 

So what is the purpose?  Ah, so now we can deal with the first of the rights the opponents say pertains to the Amendment.  The Militia, it is’ in the Second Amendment.  Now, this is why I said one must know ones history.  The Militia at the time of the creation of the Constitution was made up of …guess what, individuals, the people if you will.  The Militia was the people not a government entity.  So what is its purpose?  Well as I said it was not hunting or for shooting at paper targets obviously, it says it right in the amendment. “…for the security of a free State…”  But one must know ones history to know that the militia was made of the people not an official government army.  The government had no standing army at the time the militia that won our freedom was made up of farmers, trappers and individual Americans then, and individual Americans now.  So now you should be able to figure out all by your self why these misinformed ignorant people think they can just take your guns away and why they really want to.  You should also have deduced by now that it is because they are afraid of you.  They want to control you, not the guns.  They do not want to control guns they want to ban them, because then you’ will no longer be in control, they will.  It’s the first step to Tyranny and the Framers new exactly that, hence the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms for the expressed purpose of maintaining security of a free State.  Without the second amendment we lose all of our rights and our freedom.  We lose everything!    

The Washington Post asserts, as a gun opponent, that “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them.”  Believing that our Constitution offers no protection for individual gun ownership, gun opponents therefore encourage efforts to restrict or ban citizen’s access to firearms, particularly handguns.  Even United States Senator Diane Feinstein, (D-CA) listen to her, in her forthcoming legislation, she has been planning for eight years to outlaw 120 individual type of firearms. Moreover she has stated: “If I had my way, all guns would be banned.”  Gun control is not what they’re after my friend; control of ‘YOU’ is what they’re after! Thank God so far she is not getting her way.

These opponents to our Second Amendment frequently utilize highly-publicized, tragic instances of violence (such as the Sandy Hook School shooting, the theater shooting in Colorado, etc.) to fortify their argument that guns should be left only in the hands of  “professionals.”  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a supporter of Senator Feinstein, has stated “The individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well-regulated militia.’”  Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.”  (An obvious blatantly ignorant lie)  Cabinet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan prefers to abandon our Constitution.  Do you need more proof of their agenda and why?  These very words have been given in a speech given at a Washington DC elementary school that We have common values that go far beyond the Constitutional right to bear arms.  This has been said for the past 40 years, every time a school massacre occurs.  And what we got as a result was dangerous GUN FREE ZONES!  How is that working out for us?  Check out my last several articles.

The Founding Fathers of this nation understood that there exists inalienable rights that individuals possess and that our American government was formed with the sole purpose of defending and protecting those individual inalienable rights.  Among civil societies this concept of safeguarding individual inalienable rights as the purpose of government is solely unique to our nation.

The Second Amendment is one of those inalienable rights the Founding Fathers demanded of the government they created, embodied in our Constitution; and our office holders all take an oath to protect and defend.  Now some of them wish to destroy it.

Opponents will twist, either by ignorance or design, the Founders original intent to argue that they never intended to allow citizens to be armed with semi-automatic rifles or anything else for that matter.  The fact is that a common error in constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine a document according to its original meaning.  As I said they don’t know their history…or likely don’t care.

James Wilson, one of only six founders who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the Supreme Court, exhorted: “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”  Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison) also emphasized this principle, declaring: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all documents is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and the intention of the parties.”  At the time it was framed, the Second Amendment was a certification to protect what was frequently called “the first law of nature”—the right of self-protection—an inalienable right; a right guaranteed to every citizen ‘individually’.

To understand the import of the Second Amendment’s intention to secure an individual’s inalienable right “to keep and bear arms”, it is important to establish the source of inalienable rights constitutionally.  Constitution signer John Dickenson, like many of the others in his day, defined an inalienable right as a right “which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”  Hence the “Shall not be infringed” clause in the Amendment.

Our Founders believed that it was the duty of government (an inferior power) to protect inalienable rights from encroachment or usurpation.  This was made clear by Justice Wilson, while a serving Justice on the Supreme Court, to his law students.  The specific protections found in our government documents did not create new rights but rather secured old rights – that our documents were merely “…to acquire a ‘new security’ for the possession or the recovery of those rights… which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator God.”  Justice Wilson asserted that “…every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

THE BOTTOM LINE: The Founders of this nation understood that the source and history of inalienable rights is never found in government.  When Government grants rights, government can remove those rights.  They understood that self-defense and the right to preserve freedom is an inalienable personal right, and the Second Amendment simply assures each citizen that they have the tools necessary to defend their freedom, life, family, or property from aggression, whether from an individual or a government.  Moreover to clinch that fact, “Shall not be infringed” was attached to the end of the Amendment.

It is either by ignorance or by design that any government official pursues the abolition of any of our rights, but in either case should be impeached for violation of their oath of office and of the US Constitution, the highest law of the land.  Moreover, ignorance is no excuse.  Even for you my friend…

Thanks for listening – de Andréa

No comments: