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 School
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
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 afree State free State
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
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
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment