The subject of gun control has been in the news like never before because of the recent deadly shootings at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and near the Empire State Building in New York City.
Liberals, predictably, are calling for more draconian gun laws.
But this doesn’t mean that conservatives—including those who talk incessantly about their reverence for the Constitution—can be trusted when it comes to the subject of gun control.
Those who talk the loudest about the Constitution don’t think it means what it says and says what it means when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Those who pride themselves on being strict constitutionalists don’t strictly follow the Constitution at all when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Those who talk the most about following the Constitution, obeying the Constitution, and discovering the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution do none of these things when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Those who rail against “judicial activism” and a “living Constitution” are themselves guilty when it comes to the Second Amendment.
All opponents of liberal and progressive cries for more gun control laws appeal to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), in which the Court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The Court then reaffirmed this opinion in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), and further ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to the states.
So why do we still have a myriad of federal gun laws? And why do we still have a myriad of state and local gun laws? Something doesn’t smell right.
The Second Amendment reads: “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.”
Obviously, the Second Amendment hasn’t prevented the federal government from infringing upon gun rights and enacting any gun-control law it chooses to. Basically, the Second Amendment only means what the Supreme Court says it means. To their shame, most “Constitutional conservatives” have agreed, and accepted decades of various federal gun-control laws that make a mockery of the Second Amendment.
In the 2008 supplement to The Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation that contains an analysis of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court to June 26, 2008, it states about the Heller case:
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Similarly, the requirement that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was found to limit the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated. And, more importantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
The opinion in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Heller decision was written by Antonin Scalia, joined by John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. There is much good in this opinion:
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. . . . It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.
In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . . This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542,
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
However, this does not mean that conservatives on the Supreme Court think the Second Amendment means what it says and says what it means. As Scalia also writes:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
These are dangerous dicta.
But not only did the Supreme Court reaffirm in the McDonald case that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it also repeated the assertion in Heller that the government would infringe upon American’s gun rights on any occasion and for any reason it wanted to:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” We repeat those assurances here.
Most people misconstrue the nature of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment confers no positive right. Nothing in the Second Amendment grants any American the right to do anything. If the Amendment didn’t exist, Americans would still have the natural and moral right to keep and bear arms of any kind for any purpose. The Second Amendment only recognizes an existing right. If the federal government had any authority whatsoever to make any law regarding any weapon, then that authority would have to be spelled out in the Constitution in Article I, section 8. The Second Amendment is merely an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place. As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from infringement by the new and powerful central government under the Constitution.
Even if the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia, it still wouldn’t change anything. In that case, all it would do is specifically protect the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia. It wouldn’t change the natural and moral right of all men to arm themselves for hunting, sport, recreation, or self-defense against aggression by other men or governments.
But what about the historical exceptions mentioned by Justice Scalia? What about weapons that wouldn’t normally be used in a militia? What about weapons that weren’t envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution? What about dangerous and unusual weapons?
Yea, what about them?
Again, the Second Amendment reads: “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.”
The Second Amendment doesn’t read:
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by historical infringements.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by longstanding prohibitions.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to dangerous and unusual weapons.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons not normally used in a militia.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that cannot be hand-carried.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to military-type weapons.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to automatic weapons.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that weren’t envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons not in common use.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by reasonable regulations.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment has no exceptions.
This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to fire a gun anywhere one chooses. This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to carry a gun onto anyone’s property without permission. This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to set up a gun range in one’s backyard. This doesn’t mean it should be lawful to keep a gun in one’s car at work if one’s employer prohibits it.
Become a member and support the TAC!
But it does mean that from a constitutional, decentralist, or libertarian perspective, the federal government has no authority to ban or regulate handguns, shotguns, rifles, automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, assault rifles, grenades, bazookas, high caliber guns and ammunition, or high capacity magazines.
The federal government has no authority to institute gun bans, gun-free zones, licensing of gun dealers, gun-owner databases, gun licensing, gun registration, or concealed weapons laws.
The federal government has no authority to mandate background checks, waiting periods, limits on gun purchases, trigger locks, age restrictions, or any mandate to the States to do these things.
The federal government has no authority to regulate gun sales, gun purchases, gun shows, gun storage procedures, ammunition, magazine capacities, gun calibers, or gun barrel lengths.
The federal government has no authority to pass gun-control legislation like the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Gun Free School Zones Act.
The federal government has no authority to set up a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms since it has no authority to ban or regulate alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
Ah, but what of the power of the several states to institute arms control Laurence?
@FL10thAmendment I think he covers that, although not so directly – in this piece.
@Michael Boldin Didn’t catch that anywhere. Now, not arguing for gun control of any kind. We should all be armed as well at the least as our rapidly federalized local LEO. However, if the Bill of Rights is a constraint of the federal government as postulated in Gunning Down the Constitution (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/) then States and locales theoretically have the power to regulate firearms ownership.
Agreed, the federal government has no authority in this matter. None. Self defense being a natural right, no government should be able to legislate such ownership and the matter should never even be taken up in a federal court. Mr. Vance is also the author of an excellent piece The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/) detailing the mistaken “incorporation theory” regarding the States and the Bill of Rights. In the above article the statement is made:”The Court then reaffirmed this opinion in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), and further ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to the states” leading me to believe based on the prior article that the author does not believe the Second Amendment does apply to the States. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights would seem to make it clear they were not intended to be “incorporated.” Had it been so, would not religious disestablishment been required to end immediately upon ratification? It lasted into the 1800′s. The States at the time of ratification would certainly not disarm their people/militia,and would certainly not agree to empower a central government to do so, but if this amendment holds against the States, then what amendments do ,do/ not and why?
@FL10thAmendment @Michael Boldin Do not each state’s Constitution specifically spell out our Second Amendment rights? There is NO wiggle room for these filth.
@RedTulie @Michael Boldin States are different in the wording. Hawaii uses the federal wording. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1921#stateconst
@FL10thAmendment @Michael Boldin It’s still the same thing, isn’t it? Still spells out what our rights are….
@FL10thAmendment well put! I’m pretty confident that Laurence is not an incorporationist. My reading of his work has always been individual liberty – and decentralization is an excellent path towards it.
@FL10thAmendment Ah, but what of the power of “We The People” in and of the several states to having “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”…
I’ve been trying to teach citizens for years on and about the Amendments to the Constitution being “SHALL NOT’S” on the government in any capacity. I got so frustrated I wrote a web page to put it in simple term on the 1st Ten Amendments alone. It can be located at my web adress http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/mrducksmrnot under the title U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights – What Do You Know? Folks this is how it was taught to me by teacher’s when I was in school that believed in America and the Constitution and Freedom. Believe me, you can read the reply’s to my webpage and see it is no longer taught to anyone and most folks that don’t even live in America know more about out rights and limits on the government than the common U.S. Citizen does. It is a shame but our educational system and family have let the younger generation down and not taught what once was common knowledge to those of us in their 60′s and up in age. It is High Time “WE THE PEOPLE” Took back our government and put the common man/woman in office from the lowest form of government to the highest office. Public office used to be an honor to serve and not an office to be bought for with money and big interest business. Keep up the great work 10th Amendment Center and feel free to share my webpage with any and all.
The title is “Education on the Constitution and Bill Of Rights – What Do You Know?” at
http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/mrducksmrnot
“The federal government has no authority…”
These 6 words should flow from the lips of every American who still believes in liberty.
@Bob Greenslade AMEN.
@Bob Greenslade Exactly. Not something that’s mentioned enough…
@Bob Greenslade I actually believe that quote-unquote liberals have deleted that phrase out of the english language. The words might exist individually but it seems to violate some kind of rule that you can’t put them together in that way. I call it language crime which in itself is thought-crime because all language is an identical creation of one’s own thoughts.
@onetenther @Bob Greenslade It’s called “badthink” Didn’t you read Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”?
@onetenther @Bob Greenslade Or Lewis Carroll? From “Through the Looking Glass”:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.”
It was the “unusual and dangerous” weapons I wondered about.
This article partially addresses that issue, but give no references to
why Scalia or any other Justice recognized “unusual and dangerous” weapons
as acceptions. Cannon’s weren’t unusual at the time. Machine guns aren’t
unusual today.
Any ideas where “unusual and dangerous” came from?
@egbegb Any weapon made becomes unusual and dangerous when someone is killed or injured and the local news can make money off of the story and ruin someone life. The real weapon that is unusual and dangerous is the out of control government, unjust justice system, paid off politicians and big industry. Next time you go to any store for anything ask the manager where the “Made In America” section is. If there is one it will only take up less space that your closet.
Another aspect to their unlawful intrusion into this inherent right that we have is their insistence that one cannot be mentally ill and keep & bear arms. These days it would take NOTHING to be labelled mentally ill for almost anything. This is very dangerous. While it certainly isn’t a good idea for those who have mental issues to be brandishing any weapon, who gets to define what is a mental issue? You just know that they’ll use any opportunity to exclude as many as possible from gun ownership/use.
@RedTulie In the eye’s of the present administration and the Senate and Congress for the most part ALL of “We The People” are mentally ill ‘so to speak’ as we all agree that “We The People” are not being represented as per the Oath Of Office our Government from the local level all the way to the Federal Government is NOT representing us “We The People”. That makes us all mentally ill in the Government’s eyes. Beware of TSA, NDAA and the new Face recognize software the government is now using. The FBI and all other so called agencies that popped up since 911 in the name of National Security are here to take any and all, right or wrong.
The feds have no moral or legitimate authority but they have the backing of the majority to do whatever they want. For example, theft (taxation), kidnapping, torture, murder are acceptable if the feds claim it is necessary. No proof is needed. Just the claim. The general public does not hold any gov’t agency to the same moral standards as they do individuals. Why? The federal gov’t and all its subsidiaries are held in reverence as having unquestionable moral authority. Why? That is the purpose and result of 12 years of state indoctrination in state schools. Subsequently, the state exercises unlimited violence both here and abroad. But the worldwide majority does not revere the U.S. It is held in contempt for the criminal it is. And as Americans, that puts us all in danger. As we should be. We are not exempt from punishment. We will be judged for giving unlimited power to an elite. And even the innocent among us (voluntaryists?) will be branded as “imperialist” or empire builders. The irony is that the condemners are quilty of giving their gov’t the same power. The U.S. gov’t is the most powerful and therefore abuses the most. That is the only difference.
@Don Duncan ”The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes,and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” GEORGE WASHINGTON. ”We the people” have been dumbed down by lying media, poison in our water and foods and more. It’s up to those of us who understand the truth to get our Country back on the right course.
@mrducksmrnot Once the power was given it was used to create an indoctrination system for the purpose of keeping and expanding political power. The biggest theft of all time, the bank bailout, went on in plain sight, with 99.99% disapproval and NO RECALLS. A few whimpers, but no rebellion, no protests, no accountability. Again, during the Katrina crisis, guns were essential for citizens to protect their neighborhoods. They were confiscated immorally and illegally without resistance. What more poof do you need? When will you call a slave a slave? When he is in a concentration camp? It’s too late then to wake up!
@Don Duncan I agree with you “the proof is in the pudding” but guess I’m not part of the pudding as my arms are always on my side ready. I’m just an ole Mountain man but what I fought for in Viet-Nam which also was an undeclared and unjustified war was for my rights and yours under the Constitution and Bill Of Rights as Written. I AM NOT A SLAVE nor will I bow down to this government and become one. I protest and go to the courts to win for “We The PEople” against tremendous odds but I go to win and I leave a FREE man with all my rights intact. Sometimes I have lot’s of mountains to climb to obtain that freedom but with GOD as I perceive Him to be on my side I have nothing to lose and ever-lasting life to gain. When we come back to a nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All – and only then will America become what she was meant to be from the beginning. What you and I need to do is keep EDUCATING “We The People” on how to rebel, protest and if need be with force just as little David did against Goliath. GOD does allow killing of the Devil’s followers. The Bible tells me so.
Bravo! This is the best read on the Second Amendment since Penn and Teller aired their “Gun Control” episode (google for it). Naturally, this piece is more detailed than Penn’s narration, but Penn and Teller nail the only reasonable conclusion about the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment when Penn argues (Teller remains mute, as always) that the second Amendment was devised to protect people FROM the militia, rather than to insure the existence of the militia.
The militia is only mentioned in the “preamble” section of the Second Amendment. As was popular in the day of the Founding Fathers, the motivation behind a rule of law was included in a preamble. The Second Amendment was indeed motivated by the existence of a militia (or standing army today), which is necessary to protect the security of a free state, but the rule of law section of the Second Amendment protects the rights of “The People,” as opposed to the militia. It does not protect a means to arm a militia, as is commonly believed–even by “pro-gun people.” If the founders had been concerned about arming the militia, they would have written “militia” instead of “the right of the people.” They didn’t do this because the militia doesn’t need protecting. It exists under the realm of government itself. A protection for the militia or any other government interest is inconsistent with the entire Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is entirely about protecting “The People” from tyrannical government, including protection from a militia or standing army. Penn and Teller’s well-reasoned read of The Second Amendment is the only argument that makes sense in the context of the Bill of Rights, the history of the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers’ experiences and goals. Some people may not like what the Founders created, but they should accept the obvious truth of the matter! I have far more respect for this argument and Penn and Teller’s argument than anything the Supremes have to say. Sadly, gun grabbers don’t respond to reason at all!
@NDAA2012 Would you support a movement that will #EvictTheUN? #tcot #ocra
@AmericanHawkTPJ Could care less about #UN as long as they keep their dirty hands off our US Constitution & are not occupying US Soil. #NDAA
@NDAA2012 They are occupying US soil… they close down 15 block of the most major city in this nation, and anyone traveling close to the UN
@NDAA2012 is subject to unwarranted search
Here’s where the government gets it unconstitutional authority.
Study the article at this link:
noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com
@Cogitor *sigh* Try the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chisolm vs Georgia. That court,and the writers of the Constitution believed in a concept of “Common Sovereignty” , that is, the people of the United States (its citizens by definition) were separate and equal sovereigns of the nation “a government OF the People” literally. That case affirmed that position. Yes, some later courts uncomfortable with that conclusion have watered it down a lot, but it’s settled law. It’s late and I’m not going into detail about it here. But the person behind that article you link to omits the 14th Article of Amendment (I checked) which makes any person born in the United States a citizen of this nation and also a citizen of the state in which they are born. Yes, the Federal government has drastically exceeded its authority, but it’s more likely due to ignorance of the law than malice.
@thebasketcase Thanks for your reply.
I went back and checked the article. The 14th amendment is explained near the end. And there was a supreme court case cited that said that a US citizen was under the jurisdiction, no matter where they were. It was the Blackmer v. the United States case.
I believe the point of the article was that we have voluntarily put ourselves into that jurisdiction when we signed up for certain federal benefits. That when we receive a benefit, like Social Security, or other such, that we didn’t realize the strings that were attached. By signing certain application forms we declared ourselves to be US Citizens.
The article also explained that the definition of US citizen changed, as an unintended result of the 14th amendment.
As you mentioned, it’s most likely out of ignorance… If this article is true, I hope that the Congress doesn’t find out that it has total power. If they already know, then the only thing holding them back is our guns.
@Cogitor The Blackmer case involved some idiot in the Teapot Dome scandal. He was in contempt of court. What SCOTUS did was affirm the 6th Article of Amendment which grants the power to compel witnesses. There is some crappy dicta by the Chief Justice, about “duties of citizens” in that case, but it was only dicta. The Supreme Court around this time was pretty strongly pro-government and treated U.S. citizens as only subjects of the United States.
(Unless you are naturalized).14th Amendment (the first paragraph):Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We are BORN into the jurisdiction unless you are naturalized citizen. No forms required.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
That “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part means people who were not already subject to a foreign power. As I think of it when I read this, it means that children born to illegal immigrants AREN’T automatically citizens! This conversation HAS been fruitful.
And Congress has ALWAYS had the power to naturalize ANYONE as a citizen of the United States. That power is granted directly in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
The only change to the definition of U.S. citizenship caused by the 14th Article of Amendment was to EXPAND it - it gave blacks citizenship (among other people). It was a blanket naturalization – well within the Constitutional powers of Congress.
And one of the things holding back the government is indeed our guns – those of private citizens – and those of our military. Ask the Promise Keepers about that.
@thebasketcase I suppose I am reading more into the points in the article than other people. I see more than one definition of the United States, and two of the definitions are different geographical areas. Which definition of the United States applies to the 14th amendment.
As for the Blackmer case, I agree the phrase, in the article, is just dicta. Still it makes the point. If you don’t believe that the government has jurisdiction over a US Citizen where ever they are, ask the expatriots who stopped paying income tax. You’ll find them in US prison.
It seems to me that the Congress is limited to 17 enumerated powers within the bounds of any state, except on lands ceded by that states legislature.
BTW, I don’t have a hotmail account.
@Cogitor Sorry, I confused you some with another writer (I was a bit tired – and somewhat cranky! :p)
This site identifies something like 35 enumerated powers for Congress and is able to give specific references for them. Some of those enumerated powers directly give control of the Federal government over state actions i.e. the “full faith and credit” and “republican government” clauses for a small sample. What is being abused is the Commerce Clause. That clause has been wrongly extended to the actions of private citizens and their private property. I’m actually with people here on the idea that the government is out of control and has greatly exceeded its authority, but it get’s my hackles up when they use poor argumentation. It makes it difficult to bring issues to court and increases the odds of certain topics being treated as “frivolous”.
The jurisdictional issue over U.S. citizens you mention is a two-edged sword because it also enables the government to act to protect them wherever they are as well. Unfortunately our Federal and state governments have worked hard to water down the idea of popular sovereignty and has led to the problems you mention.
@Cogitor @thebasketcase
On eof the problems here is highlighed by the following:
“..The article also explained that the definition of US citizen changed, as an unintended result of the 14th amendment.
As you mentioned, it’s most likely out of ignorance..”
Your assumptions seem to be that laws and especially amendments to the Constitution are written by people who do not know the English language well enough to express themselves in ways that do not have an “unintended result” or they are interpreted ”out of ignorance”.
This is why we are in trouble, we do not want to look at the overall effect of laws over time. The SCOTUS has made a distinction between a State “citizen of the United States” and a federal “citizen of the United States”.
A federal citizens has no rights or privileges except those granted TO them by Congress (SCOTUS)
“By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage -arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy – has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.”
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.”
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
@thebasketcase I think we all agree the government is way beyond the Constitutional limits. Especially the current administration, though they are just another in a long line. Historically the abuse of the Constitution started immediately after it was ratified. George Washington abused the presidential powers.
This article is a compilation of many other sources. A few were listed in the footnotes. Over the 15 years that I have been involved with the patriot movement there have been many other bits of information that lead me to believe that the construction in the article is correct. I am still looking for someone to present definitive evidence that refutes it.
Some people present scathing replies, but no evidence, only opinion.
That’s one thing I hate about the replies that are submitted to any blog.
I want evidence, logic, and proof if possible.
Thanks for your reply. I agree on the frivolous arguments. I have seen many cases that the judge declared frivolous. If you follow the main idea of the article, it rather explains how the IRS is able to impose an income tax that is unconstitutional in the minds of many. If someone is brought into the jurisdiction in the District, by whatever means, they are subject to it’s laws. The IRS is perfectly lawful in D.C. Do we unknowingly traverse into that jurisdiction. Perhaps by getting our taxpayer identification number (SS#). Frankly, I really don’t know for sure. I got there somehow.
The two edged sword, that you mention, Constitutionally bothers me, if I have to give up my liberty to get protection.
So, I’m open to solutions.
The current talk around the patriot community is that we need to repeal the 17th amendment, so that state legislature once again had some voice in Congress. Repeal the 14th amendment as it is no longer necessary. and repeal the 16th amendment.
Sounds like a good start.
@CFrancisHabeck
“This is why we are in trouble, we do not want to look at the overall effect of laws over time. The SCOTUS has made a distinction between a State “citizen of the United States” and a federal “citizen of the United States”.
Really? Where? Cite? Link to case law?
A federal citizens has no rights or privileges except those granted TO them by Congress (SCOTUS)”
Really? Cite? Link to case law? Amazing. I guess the the Bill of Rights is just a figment of our collective imagination or the usage of the word “right” frequently used in those Articles of Amendment were just an inside joke.
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855) is a CALIFORNIA case. And the context you give might have been an argument by one of the case principles and not the justices without having any further context. Given that it blatantly ignores the existence of the 14th Article of Amendment that had been long ratified and explicitly identified the existence of a common United States citizenship, and also blatantly ignored the very preamble of the U.S. Constitution, I suspect this case did not set any precedent that was sustained.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). Good choice here. And the ruling directly points out the dual citizenship U.S. citizens are born with. Dual, and even more citizenships are quite commonplace in the U.S. and internationally, and have been that way for longer than the U.S. has existed. (I recognize this as a SCOTUS case and it’s an often cited one).
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
Interesting case, but NOT SCOTUS again. It’s a good case because of the situations where a U.S. citizen is born in a territory rather than a state of the United State Puerto Rico is a good example of this.
@CFrancisHabeck @thebasketcase Thank you for this information. Great reply. I truly enjoy an intelligent conversation.
If the construction of the article is correct, even somewhat, it should be possible to revoke ones US citizenship, but remain in a state, as a state citizen only.
I wouldn’t jump right into it. The consequences might be untenable.
It does warrant some further investigation. Without US citizenship how would one get a passport? I’m sure there are many more consequences yet not thought of.
Perhaps there is a solution and a way to get rid of the undesirable effects, and not throw the good ones out. After all, the government is supposed to protect our rights, not squash them.
Another caution is that there seems to be two state governments within any given state. One is the organic states government. The other is a federal State government in each state. One would have to be careful which state they claimed citizenship in. The article has some information about the two state governments.
An interesting study is the meanings of the words “within”, and “without”, as they are used in the US Code. Looking closely at the words, it seems that “within” the United States applies only to Washington, D.C. While “without” seems to apply to living in one of the several states. It’s a further clue to the validity of the article, since the oaths, that we sign, at the bottom of many forms that we must fill out, use the oath designated for use “within” the District. There is different oath for use “without”. We are treated as if we are “within” the District.
Also I have a copy of a 475 page report that was done for president Eisenhower about the jurisdiction of the federal government within the bounds of a state. It basically says, the federal government has no authority within a state, except on federal enclaves, on lands that have been ceded to the fed by that states legislature. That’s why Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other county sheriffs can tell the Federal Agents to pack up and get out.
We Americans are so ignorant. Even the illiterate peasants of old England knew their rights.
I am including the link for those who may not know what article we have been talking about.
http://noconctitutionforyou.blogspot.com
@Cogitor Actually the 17th Amendment was an attempt to solve a real problem of Senate corruption. Rather than an outright repeal it should be modified to allow both popular and state legislative appointments to the Senate. It would double the number of Senators, but it would increase the overall accountability of the Senate and kill some political excess (hopefully!). The 14th Amendment is VERY necessary. It has a couple of warts, but it’s still actually protecting our rights. It constantly comes up in Federal and state cases. The 16th Amendment was always crap and violates popular sovereignty – making it void from the outset, but it’s getting that sovereignty fully recognized again that is the best solution to that one.
@Cogitor @CFrancisHabeck U.S. citizenship is vital, but our Federal government has abused its position with regards to that. The Dred Scott case you find SCOTUS describing the nature of that citizenship and its value at length (one of the better parts of that case).
You will have to give me examples of that word usage in the U.S. Code. Last I knew “within” meant anywhere within the borders of the United States and areas subject to its authority, and “without” meant the opposite unless it was the part of the Code specifically targeting the D.C. area (which does have a special status under the Constitution).
There are no “Federal state governments”. There might be Federal enclaves within a state subject only to Federal authority unless state officials are invited, but that’s as far as that goes. And under Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Federal government has full authority to enforce Federal laws and protections (in combination with the necessary and proper clause). But unless Federal officers are acting to enforce national law they have no jurisdiction outside of Federal territory. The sheriffs can always tell them to leave in those instances. That’s part of our Tenth Amendment protections.
But, sadly, you are right. Americans are VERY ignorant of our Constitutions and laws. Even though @CFrancisHabeck and I have our differences, he’s still got more sense of our laws than the average citizen and is willing to do his homework and share his results.
@thebasketcase @Cogitor
”And Congress has ALWAYS had the power to naturalize ANYONE as a citizen of the United States. That power is granted directly in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.”
REALLY???!!!!
Do not read into the Constitution what is not there. Don’t we have enough problems with that?
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;..”
Note that the Congress can only ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of Naturalization; it was definitely NOT granted the power to naturalize.
The reason was that only the States had the authority to naturalize; that is why people were referred to a a Citizen of New York or Virginia. The 14th Amendment was written to confer that power to the feds since the Congress knew that their 1866 Civil Rights Act was going to be found unconstitutonal by the SCOTUS. Read it and you will see the same wording. Now if the feds had the power to naturaliz, why did they try to assert it through an Act and then push through (unconstitutionally) the 14th Amendment?
And yes, the 14th was never properly ratified since the Northern Congressmen refused to seat the Southern ones, after they had voted on the 13th, and then passed the Reconstruction Acts which allowed for the military takeover of those States and the appointment of their supposed representatives.
@Cogitor I didn’t study the contents of the link at length, because it appears to build a case for authority on the concept of “citizen” (legal concept or otherwise). Maybe that’s your point, because you did remark that government possesses “unconstitutional authority.”
I can’t find any references to the word “citizen” anywhere in the Bill of Rights. I find “people” and “person,” which are much broader terms than “citizen,” but I find no indication that the Bill of Rights was devised to limit the powers of government to only protect “citizens.”
Of course, what the ‘ink on paper” says and what government does are two very different things and government gets its authority from guns, in all cases, and never ink on paper!
@calinb7 Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Maybe I can summarize the article for you.
The word citizenship is a reference to where a person is domiciled. The term domicile is key. It’s defined in the article.
The Constitution gives complete authority to Congress to make any law or regulation within the boundaries of Washington, D.C.. The US Supreme Court says that Congress is not bound by the Constitution In Washington, D.C.
We, who have a legal nexus to the US government, through our Social Security Number, voter registration, birth certificate, and other benefits, have made ourselves Citizens of Washington, D.C. and we are considered “domiciled” in D.C. By doing so we have agreed to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. People who are state citizens, but not US Citizens,(some Amish people for instance), aren’t under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, except for the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution doesn’t protect we US Citizens of Washington, D.C.. and everything that the US Government does to us is Constitutional.
Obviously this digest has left out most of the detail, and all of the citations. It may therefore give you an impression that this is bogus. To get the full construction, as the article says, you have to “study it”. For me the information has taken months to sink in. And as I look at things in the news, it makes more sense.
I have spread this article around the internet as the opportunity arises. I have written to several people who might be able to refute it. I have had no one reply.
I suppose that most people are too busy for such a study. Or maybe they skim it and just write it off as garbage.
@Cogitor @calinb7 The Congress the has power to make any necessary and proper law to carry out it’s duties… and not just in Washington D.C.
“The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Why don’t you take the time to read the rest of the “forgoing powers” in Article I, Section 8, and not focus on solely on the clause previous to the “necessary and proper clause”.
The Constitution gives citizenship based on BIRTH, not on domicile. There is not one word about ”domiciles” in the Constitution. It speaks of the “People” or the “People of the United States”. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)
I’d love to evaluate your article. I suspect I won’t be kind to it, but at least you’ve taken the time to research some case law. I don’t want to give out my person email address here. I’ll send you a request to your (ugh!) hotmail account.
@Cogitor
Thanks for your summary, above. I took the time to study it and understand that the article may be completely consistent within the context of states and nations, but I don’t believe in either of them! One of my favorite movies is Jean Renoir’s, “The Grand Illusion” (1937).
I definitely have trouble staying on-topic once a discussion about the Constitution drifts away from what’s actually written in the document or the history of the people who devised it,
Also, please see my most recent post to thebasketcase, above.
>our Social Security Number, voter registration,
>birth certificate, and other benefits,
These are benefits? I view them (and what they imply) as chains that deny us liberty! I also believe that the “social contract,” as it is commonly held, is statist brainwashing, devised to allay people’s concerns that would otherwise result from a person’s moral compass. I’d be happy to continue discussions along philosophical lines in a forum like strike-the-root.com or freedomainradio.com, instead of wandering off-topic in this venue, which is essentially advocating the state–though a much smaller Federal state!
Summary: The Federal Second Amendment reaffirms the right of the States to maintain well-regulated militias for security of a Free State for which is the reason the people are to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of rendering standing armies unnecessary.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2010/09/second_amendment_fallacies/
@AndrewJackson1
From the referenced article;
“..The federal bill of rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, did not confer anything to the people in terms of individual rights and freedoms for the simple reason they already possessed such rights through their own sovereignty under their own constitutions…”
@CFrancisHabeck @AndrewJackson1 Not all state constitutions conferred the same rights. And the state and Federal governments have both acted to ignore the sovereignty of the people.Here are the first four clauses of my own state’s constitution (from the Article 1, my state’s bill of rights):”Section 1. Source of political power—origin, basis and aim of government.—That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all governmentof right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Section 2. Promotion of general welfare—natural rights of persons—equalityunder the law—purpose of government.—That all constitutional government isintended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a naturalright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of theirown industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights andopportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal officeof government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in itschief design.
Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form ofgovernment.—That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive rightto regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish theirconstitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to theirsafety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution ofthe United States.Source:
Section 4. Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments toConstitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state,subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties ofthe people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belongingto the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.”
Sounds nice, right? In fact much of it follows the U.S. Constitution’s bill of rights – almost! That “almost” part was with regard to double jeopardy and a few other protection clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court wound up ruling those sections in Missouri’s constitution violated the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights with regards to, among other things, double jeopardy. That was as late as 1999! (and the stuff they ruled on was pretty nasty).
State governments and other lower governments have been magnets for petty tyrants and those wanting to rob their fellow citizens of their essential liberties. The Feds are a magnet too, but it’s much more difficult and slower a target for the corrupt. Despite some criticisms, the 17th Amendment was targeting that very creep into the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately it also has been the basis of the Fed getting too much power against the states..
@thebasketcase @AndrewJackson1
”Despite some criticisms, the 17th Amendment was targeting that very creep into the U.S. Senate.”
You do realize that the 17th Amendment is itself unconstitutional, right?
Does anyone here know why we have two houses of Congress?
Why do all spending bills have to originate in the House?
Why do all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate?
The House is elected by the people and as such is supposed to be responsible to them. This is because only people actually pay taxes and hence have to pay for the spending.
Treaties are binding on the states so the Senators are supposed to be protecting the states from encroachment of their sovereignty. That is one reason why Senators were originally appointed by their respective state legislatures.
The 17th Amendment changed the way senators were placed into Congress. It allowed for a popular vote which also change the Senators’ roles and remove one of the checks and balances put into the Constitution. It was championed by the Progressives.
Note:
ARTICLE V.
The Congress, …., shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, … when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, …; Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. (emphasis mine)
Please note that AFTER the amending provisions certain restrictions are put into place.
The emphasized one guaranteed that a State’s right to vote, that is cannot be taken away without its consent.
Now, the 17th Amendment would have to have been passed unanimously in order for it to be Constitutional since any state voting against the amendment had its right to suffrage taken away.
Its really nice we have all this extra emphasis to tell ourselves we have this right, but the fact is I have a right to life by being born period and having my own arms is the same exact right and is not a permission from some other who makes up their own authority. SHUT UP! All I need to know is what I am sure of so I shall bare arms and if I should have to give mutual disrespect to keep it I shall. This does not say I am raging to use this selfless act, It means I will share what ever respect I am given. You give me some and you shall receive some, you give me none and I shall return exactly what you deliver. There is nothing wrong with mutual respect and is how respect is earned. Political correctness is crap and mutual respect is only returning to someone what they deliver. If they don’t like it stop spreading what you do not like. In fact its remarkable we even have to say this or have a constitution to have life on this planet.
Start acting like LIFE, you know the living that do actions that support us with total respect for each other. That is all we need to know to do the right thing. Again the second amendment only means something if you apply the Declaration of Independence to it, it means when I decide to be separate from tyrants I shall be by my own choice. It means I am life and I shall do the act of Liberty (limit my governing body) to do this takes the public in our communities in a united decision to reach that objective.
This hornets nest of tyrants is simply united in their attempt to expand themselves and the only reason they reach it is we have no unity for Liberty plain and simple. Of course 98 % of you don’t know your own foundation. You think its the constitution but its not, it is your own declaring of the separation and to do this you have to decide or you are lying to you. Reread the Declaration of Independence until you are able to live by it and then stand along side me and make your choice.
Like another poster here I got very tired of arguing the issue on various forums. After hearing about people demanding “sensible gun control” for the last time, I actually created a blog post on it. I’m adding the link here. It has technical issues but I’m largely happy with it. I actually map out a pattern for “gun control” legislation in it. I also expand the basis of gun rights to more than the 2nd Article of Amendment.
Link here: http://diaryofabasketcaseprogrammer.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-arms-and-gun-control.htmlFeel free to comment respectfully.
@thebasketcase Nice article (EDUCATION) is the KEY here. Thanks for posting. Everyone should check this out.
@thebasketcase
Nice article truebasketcase and truly one of the things I take away from it is not all the words but all the decisions we make to live in this manner. So many are stuck on some meaning or some permission but this is not true. All these points are decisions we make to support us as LIFE in each one of these communities and no governing body anywhere has any authority to take or remove these choices period.
Why is it everyone wants to be a scholar versus live their life?
I think we miss the point about Gun Control, the only gun control that should be imposed is how many Governments can buy since it is us they use to buy them. The other thing is Government is buying up all this ammo at our expense but who is going to use it against you? Our Military? Hardly they have fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and and family all over this country, you think they are going to sit back and watch and cause this slaughter? I have far more faith in my countrymen for the most part because it is only a few pretending to be my countrymen who create this crap against me.
Those doing the acts of tyranny are hardly our countrymen for they truly are our enemies. Those choosing to side with them no more countrymen than those imposing this crap. When do we stand up and act like we know far more than stupid shows us?
@thebasketcase
In my opinion, “sensible gun control” has to start with sensible sentencing for those who misuse a firearm. Misusing a firearm should carry a severe sentence.
Statistics on gun “abuse” that include the possession of a firearm when it is not shown during the crime or alluded to are used to infer a greater misuse than there actually is. While reports of firearms being used to prevent crime are ignored by most of the media.
@CFrancisHabeck You hit the nail on the head. The idea of “gun control” as a preventative measure is really a fallacy. My article actually was based on a punitive measure that depended on due process. You can only react to circumstances as they appear or find a way to deal with the consequences. Effective prevention require the ability to successfully and consistently predict the future – an ability we obviously lack. The Law of Relativity as described by Galileo and the Law of Indeterminacy (several, Quantum Mechanics) see to that incapacitance.
Everyone should take note that the Fed Government is buying up ammo like crazy since they cannot stop us from owning guns. Also make note on the type of ammo you do buy-notice the grain and fps has changed dramatically to make “We The People” even armed not as effective against the tyranny around us. Buy plenty of any and all you can get – reload all you can and quit selling metal’s like copper that can be used for bullets. Times will get worse before they get better and this election no matter who wins is not going to be good for any of us. Keep the faith people. Lock and load, peaceful demonstrations are being met with deadly force so something has to give somewhere, sometime.
.
@ColCoopersGhost The Constitution is subverted via E.O. and various ‘Acts’. How in the hell is this lawful? Then again….
@awakenedavenger I agree with the conclusions. If the Bill of Rights were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist.
@ColCoopersGhost I agree to point; it would definitely become comparable to a privilege under intense controls. A right? Down the drain.
Please read this and THINK!!!! English can be a precise or vague language. This attribute is being used against us. We all ASSUME the meanings of words we hear and read but that meaning is not necessarily correct.
We, the people (NOT We the People), have been converted into chattel of the federal government. This occurred due to the so-called 14th amendment. This created a federal citizen that has only those privileges that Congress ALLOWS. The Constitution does grant the power to do whatever it wants with its property. If you do not believe this, read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” on my face book or mail me at patriot1789 at hot mail; for a copy. Most of you will not because you simply love to complain but do not want to know the truth.
Note:
“Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
“We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
PLEASE NOTE: The term “citizens of the United States” as used here can NOT be the same “citizens of the United States” used in the Original Constitution since those “citizens of the United States” did ” include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Or else for whom were the “Bill of Rights” written to protect?
Interested in reading further or content to live in ignorance? Mail patriot1789 at hot mail for a copy of “A Patriot’s Thoughts” to gain insight into the real problem. Most of you won’t, you just like to complain and joust at windmills.
@CFrancisHabeck Re-read the 14th Amendment please. I’m a supporter of the concept of popular sovereignty as were most of the Founding Fathers and the first Supreme Court of the United states. I’m also quite aware of the history of the 14th Amendment – it’s why we have the protections we have now from the Bill of Rights at the STATE level! And not just the first eight Amendments. But kill the flaky stuff please. The phrase “ English can be a precise or vague language” ? Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning. Get some legal training and quit trying to fit very old case law without proper understanding or context into your conspiracy theories.
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
Isn’t the concept of legal precedent nothing but making precisely the same mistake repeatedly? You do know the difference between precision and accuracy, don’t you?
>Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning.
Haha–you’re joking, right? You must have consumed a awful lot of law industry Kool-Aid in your life! How do you explain all the 5-4 splits in the Supremes’ decisions, if the basis for their “opinions” is so precise? If you asked nine learned doctors for their opinions on a medical condition and they came back claiming to have an “answer” in a 5-4 split of opinion, I don’t think you’d be terribly impressed with their findings, yet certainly no one claims that the medical profession always deals with precise inputs.
Perhaps the Supremes fail to achieve agreement on matters of law because law, though precise, is terribly inaccurate.
Sorry thebasketcase, I think Humpy Dumpty had the more perceptive point of view in this matter (see my previous post).
@calinb7 @CFrancisHabeck Have you ever read those decisions? At length? You will find that often those splits have nothing to do with precise word meaning, but usually more to do with personal beliefs and concerns. And, yes, I do know the difference between precision and accuracy. And I’ve seen some horrible crap come out of the Supreme Court BECAUSE they ignored precedent and ignored plain language. “Arver” springs to mind… That one still makes me want to throw up. Probably our best SCOTUS was the first – it put the people before the government – and they stuck to the existing language. Oh, and that court wisely pointed out that common law was the rulings of American courts based on our fundamental principles and NOT the common law of England.
I agree that personal political bias is a significant factor in such decisions. Bias affects one’s interpretation of the meaning of the precise words.
Legal scholars can’t even agree on the meaning of the Second Amendment so I think this debate over whether or not words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning is completely moot. Anyone who exists in a position of power interpreting the words certainly thinks, or at least argues, that they are interpreting the words precisely and accurately!
When it comes to protecting liberty, law is often also moot (which really means that it’s completely moot, because law that is inconsistently applied through process is actually no “law” at all!). Liberty is doomed as soon as one accepts rulers and their rules of law.
I am obviously coming from a very different philosophical point of view than many of the people posting here. I was a card-carrying Libertarian for many years but now I believe the Constitution is a dead letter, and I believe that it was doomed to fulfill this destiny from the beginning. My only interest in the subject is based on my belief that a strict interpretation of the Constitution results in a reduction of government ethical transgressions and greater liberty for the people, but I now know this is a false hope in my lifetime. Regardless, old habits die hard and I post.
I’m getting off-topic and into a philosophical realm but, while I appreciate the arguments and summaries provided by my friends here, I’d like them to understand that my main interests are fulfilled at an entirely different philosophical level that “strikes the root” for the cause of liberty, Accordingly, there are may debates here that don’t attract my attention, because I have discarded my beliefs in the superstition of the state.
@thebasketcase @calinb7
thebasketcase;”And I’ve seen some horrible crap come out of the Supreme Court BECAUSE they ignored precedent and ignored plain language.”Here you have one of the biggest problems. You ASSUME that the Supreme Court made a “bad decision”. You need to assume that they made a CORRECT decision and then look into how that decision can be correct.
All court decisions must be presumed to follow the law unless overwhelming proof is given to the contrary. This is necessary because to do otherwise will lead us chase phantoms and get us off the track of the root cause of our problems
When people testify in a courtroom, they swear to: tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and tell nothing but the truth. What is stated must be the truth, the truth with nothing withheld, and the truth with nothing added to it. This is a foundation of our judicial system. However please note that the judges, lawyers and prosecutors do not swear to this. While this does not mean necessarily that all they say are lies, it does mean that they do not have to tell the whole truth. They can bend or omit part of the truth to make a point.
Again, read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” from patiot1789@hotmail.
@thebasketcase @calinb7
“..Probably our best SCOTUS was the first – it put the people before the government..”
And why is that??? Could it be because they rules before the later amendments.
@CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 I assume nothing – that’s poor analysis . I read the decision. I follow the Court’s reasoning. I fact check. I compare against previous decisions and examine the materials referenced. – the majority of the time I find the Court has made good decisions. And if you check the history of the Slaughterhouse cases you will find the justices of the Supreme Court afterwards admitting they thought that they decided wrongly on the matter but were helpless to correct it unless somehow a new case could be brought to them. “Dred Scott” is considered a bad decision widely. Why? Because the court first stated that they had no standing in the case and then made a decision anyways about the original question! O_o. “Arver vs. The United States” that I’ve mentioned previously here involves conscription. The Supreme Court in that case didn’t even use the Constitution for their final decision – they used the writings of a political philosopher who believed in a monarchy as the ideal form of government for a nation. Essentially they violated their oath of office. Normally it would have been grounds for their removal from office, but since they were giving the Federal government extra-Constitutional authority, Congress didn’t act.
I have reason to believe you are on the right track but you are using poor arguments. You come off sounding like a flake. You are rightfully angry about the situation, but that emotion can kill logical analysis.
Where do you start? At the beginning. In Chisolm, the second justice to speak – one of the writers of the Constitution – begins with saying our nation was a new nation with no legal precedents yet (which are the basis of common law) and as a consequence he would confine himself to the only available legal reference – the Constitution. What did he and the other justices to speak use (among other items)? The Preamble “We, the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It does not begin “We, the People of Rhode Island, Virginia, Delaware, New York, …” The idea of the time was that the people of the United States had a greater citizenship that transcended their state citizenships Did you miss that part “in order to form a more perfect union?” .
@calinb7 @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
The Law, it seems is imprecise. It does not appear possible to write a law whose meaning won’t change over time. If laws were written with a catechism for education on how to apply it, things might improve, but I doubt that will happen.
The words of the laws change over time because the judges interpret the words in order to support their world views, not to understand the meaning of the authors of the laws. That, in my opinion, is a sad truth.
Justice Roberts’ recent opinion demonstrates. He found any possible way to support the *intent* of the partisan legislation, irrespective of the *intent* of the US Constitution. He chose the 2010 Congress wishes over the clear meaning of the constitution delivered by our founders.
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 What is more important, “a more perfect union” (as Lincoln believed) or individual rights (as Jefferson believed)? I.E., is the state sovereign, or are the individuals sovereign, i.e., does the forced interaction of union trump individual rights? Was the creation of “these united states” for the purpose of one neck to collar, rather than many necks (13)? If you think the latter, then the U.S. cannot secede from the U.N. and we should have a one world government.
@Don Duncan @thebasketcase Given that I’m not happy being enslaved by rulers, I’d prefer individual rights, which are the only kind of rights anyway. We could also have a philosophical debate about “rights” and the moral implications of what is implied by accepting the the entire concept and, in turn, the inverse of rights. Most recently in my life, I’ve focused on liberty (defined by actions), instead of rights (only a concept) and promoting the non-aggression principle as the only means to obtain it.
Even though I believe it’s possible for a state to exist that affords people more liberty than we have in the U.S. today, the Federalist won and it’s not going to happen in my lifetime! In truth, life in the U.S. offers very little liberty. A few third world countries offer much more liberty than the U.S. offers people today!
@Don Duncan @thebasketcase I intended to say, FederalistS. Certainly more people were responsible for the tyranny of Federalism than Alexander Hamilton!
@Don Duncan @CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 A “more perfect union” is what the writers of the Constitution believed. Personally I think we would have been better off if Jefferson had been part of that process, but he was our ambassador to France at the time, but he was for it at the start. He later became concerned about the lack of protections and his actions contributed to the Bill of Rights. If you read up on Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) you will find the idea of “popular sovereignty” echoed by the majority of the Supreme Court – including one of the main writers of the Constitution. The idea was the people of the United States were all to be separate and equal sovereigns abdication only such authority as was needed to create a common nation. In other words, not even 13 yokes, but thousands
Early Israel was essentially the same idea until they got stupid and abdicated all of their power to a single king. (The “tribes” were nation-states just like U.S. states – and they still considered themselves a single nation).
@calinb7 @Don Duncan Agreed.
@CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 ”Could it be because the rules…” Huh? I’m going to assume you meant “ruled”.
No. Because they understood the Constitution and it’s basis, especially since one of the Justices was one of its writers! They sincerely believed in popular sovereignty and declared it in their first Constitutional case. Obviously they didn’t have to guess what their predecessors meant – they didn’t have any.
@CFrancisHabeck @thebasketcase @calinb7
If that arguement holds true then Obama has upheld the constitution of the United States since he swore to… WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
thebasketcase;
“Re-read the 14th Amendment please.”
Take your own advice. Read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” and then comment.
“..it’s why we have the protections we have now from the Bill of Rights at the STATE level!..”
You do realize that a Citizen’s protections in a State are supposed to come from their State Constitutions!!! Federal protections can only be granted to federal citizens; the U.S. Constitution limited the federal government from intervening into a State’s jurisdiction until the alleged 14th Amendment was ruled by the SCOTUS as allowing it.
“..And not just the first eight Amendments..”
The SCOTUS says otherwise.
“..But kill the flaky stuff please…”
Personal attack?
“..Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning..”
So that’s why the Courts routinely change their meanings?
“..Get some legal training and quit trying to fit very old case law without proper understanding or context into your conspiracy theories…”
By “legal training” are you referring to the outcome-based education the law schools give? Where if you do not parrot their teachings, you fail?
Are you saying that “very old case law” is irrelevant? How about our even older U.S. Constitution? How old does “case law” have to be to be ignored?
“Conspiracy theories”!!! Right! And the SCOTUS did not rule that the government can take a citizens property and give it to another? It was the SCOTUS who stated the restrictions of the BoR’s protections on federal citizens. I guess they are in on the flaky conspiracy theories.
Read the paper I referenced and then talk. All of you, please do not comment from a position of ignorance. Research.
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck Doesn’t the 14th amendment say that states may not abridge the privileges and immunites of citizens of the United States. You can interpret that as states can’t trample on the PandR granted to citizens from the federal government but is there another possible meaning? The 14th amendment declares all citizens of all states in the union to be citizens of the United States. Then it says no state may abridge the PandR of those particular group of people. Citizens of the United States may be an identifier for a group so that each person from every state is guaranteed the same PandRs of that particular state That is my opinion of what that means because if you say that it means states have to recognize PandRs of the federal government then that would seem a huge infringement on state powers.
@onetenther @CFrancisHabeck Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Here’s a quick reference on the P&R problem of the 14th Ad.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/revive-privileges-or-immunities
Basically SCOTUS gutted that clause in the first 14th Ad. case it heard. There are more detailed articles on this, but for the moment P&R is something we lost. It’s the only decision I know of that the justices who decided on it publicly denounced their own ruling. It’s one of the things that has left the Constitution crippled.
@CFrancisHabeck
Symbolism is not an excuse for how you live your life and to date it baffles me why so many give these symbols such an authority over them. I don’t live by the words in the Declaration of Independence I live by the activities they describe as a basis for the choices I make. I can also see how the working parts of the Constitution fit into this basis (reason for choices) as well how the none working parts do not fit my basis.
We use this poor language designed and intended for slaves because why? This is what you were taught yet it is the most repulsive language there is because of assumptions period.
The question all should answer in this language is what is LIFE and what is the natural act of LIFE? Life is imagination and creation and our natural act is to sustain ourselves and you all should know this and make choices accordingly and then make sure any other making choices that have to do with you are aligned in this manner or it is you not being honest with you. The constitution means the activities of Liberty that all life needs to pursue these imaginations or tyranny arises (the acts against life) instead of Limiting Government bodies which is the same act as life support so history does not repeat itself. History being the activities and results of these and has not one thing to do with these symbols period.
Learn to live your life.
@WilliamSchooler
Nice comment but what does it have to do with what I wrote?
“Learn to live your life.”
I do live my life. The fact is that our Constitution has been bastardized to allow the federal government to free itself from the Constitution’s restrictions. War and depressons are a great time to enslave the People since they are desperate for help.
@CFrancisHabeck
I don’t disagree it has been bastardized but my main point is we put more into symbols than we do on the activities these symbols represent or describe. Is it their actions or our lack of actions that allows this bastardization?
@CFrancisHabeck I thought the first 8 Amendments were about restricting the federal government from writing laws about the amendment subject. They say what the federal government cannot do. They say nothing about what staes, counties or local government can do.
What am I missing?
@egbegb @CFrancisHabeck
If you read the preamble to the BOR, which coincidentaly was not part of the final vote, the entire BOR is declaratory in nature. It was supposed to be a statement of the existing reality.
Your State’s Constitution does say what the State can do. The federal government had little or no power over a State’s Citizens. The feds do have complete control over its citizens, 14th Amendment.
Since you have not read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” on my Facebook, here is a short partial summary.
The SCOTUS has stated that the term “United States” can have several meanings. One is the federa governemnt and one is the several States. how do you know which one is being referenced? With a little help you can be pretty sure.
The term “United States” is used in the 13th and 14th Amendments. The 13th abolished involuntary servitude in the “United States” ans all places subject to THEIR jurisdiction. This must reference the several States, multiple jurisdictions.
The 14th states “subject to THEJURISDICTION thereof”. This is singular; if it meant the States it would have been their jurisdictions or the jurisdictionS.
This is not some conspiracy theory, this is what is said.
Also consider that in English you can explicitly ban one thing while implicitly allowing others. The writers of the amendments know this so any vagueness is deliberate. Why is this important? Well, if the term “United States” can have multiple definitions, then banning involuntary servitude in one allows it in the other. Note that it does allow for voluntary servitude.
All for now, just got back from a 4-day trip. Email me for a copy of my article and then we can talk.
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb ”…subject to the jurisdiction thereof” dealt with the issue of foreign nationals. The wording you take out of context is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” The phrase “United States” in this context is referencing “United States” as a singular unit – a single nation – the usage of the singular term in that context. And that leads me to the crux of the problem – I don’t think you grasp the idea of “context”. Words in the English language often have multiple meanings, but those meanings only appear within a specific context. Look at the dictionary definition of a word like “quiet” sometime. And in law, there is a phrase that goes “Words are known by the company they keep” (actually the more arrogant ones use a Latin phrase, but the translation is the same). A perfect example of this is the usage of the word “people”. Prefaced with the definite article “the” in Constitution it means the citizens of the United States. And, legally, after the ratification and acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, there were no states or colonies. The charters that created those entities were void. At that moment there was only one people who later to chose to carve themselves out new governments from the remains of the old colonies. Those people held themselves as sovereigns of those political units and after lengthy persuasion agreed to create a larger, more united, nation. The Federal government has been pulling the crap you’ve been complaining about long before the 14th Amendment, Social Security or anything else you’ve been complaining about. The state governments actually have been the worst violators, and have been even before the ink on the Constitution was dry. Unfortunately the same slime that started at the state level made it into the Federal level.
@thebasketcase @egbegb
”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” The phrase “United States” in this context is referencing “United States” as a singular unit – a single nation – the usage of the singular term in that context.”
Nice try but wrong!
If that was the case, it would have been the same for the 13th Amendment. Since the 13th specifies a plural United States, the 14th could have also.
Or do you think the people who wrote them did not know what they were referring to?
Try reading this people: http://patriot1789.blogdrive.com/
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb
I’ll get your article in a moment. I’m still in the middle of another lengthy analysis right now. But…
Language of the 13th Amendment (it’s small, so quoting it in its entirety is trivial):
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]
Try this one from the United States Supreme Court:“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united under the Constitution.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652(1945)
In this case, Congress intended with the language of the 13th that it apply not only to the United States as a whole, but within the several States of the United States as well. The plural form was necessary here for conciseness. It still applies in the collective sense as well. There was no 14th Amendment yet to extend the protections to the state level implicitly, so this sort of verbal gymnastics was required.
Therefore it would have NOT been the same with the 13th as the 14th. Different purpose, different language. There is nothing to support the argument that they both required the same language.Could they have used better language? Probably. But the courts of the United States, both at the State and Federal level haven’t had any problems interpreting it, and they’ve been quite consistent when they’ve done so. There is this funny concept called “context” for the meaning of words, especially if they might have several definitions. The legal principle? “Words are known by the company they keep” (I forget the Latin). In the case of the 13th Amendment Congress needed the plural, collective meaning of “United States” and used the plural qualifier “their jurisdiction”. In the 14th Amendment, Congress needed the singular meaning and used the singular qualifier “the jurisdiction”.
The people who wrote the Constitution and the several Articles of Amendment knew exactly what they were referring to when they wrote them.
@thebasketcase @egbegb
”..Congress intended with the language of the 13th that it apply not only to the United States as a whole, but within the several States of the United States as well..”
Then why did they not say so? Your SCOTUS reference clearly states that the term may be one of the meanings but not two or more.
This is one reason people have no clue as to why we are in trouble as a country. You ASSUME the meaning of terms. The language must mean what it says or it is meaningless.
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb They did say so, and in some of the most concise language possible. I did note that they could have used better, more plain, language, but the 13th Article of Amendment was more directed at legislatures and courts than the average person and was written accordingly.
I didn’t assume the meanings. I was able to derive the correct one from the context. If you look in your typical dictionary many words have several definitions, some of them exclusive. When you use one of those words to you have to indicate which meaning you intend by something like “(the definition of this word being used is 3(b) from Funk & Wagnell’s New Collegiate Dictionary”? Of course not. You determine which meaning by what other words are being used with it. English is a very context based language which often gives adults who are learning it the first time difficulties. Many other languages DO require such spelling out. They often also have much smaller vocabularies. Spanish is one example. I’ve had speakers of that language wind up preferring English because it was much more concise. Also in English we not only choose words based on their denotation, but their connotation as well. Additionally, for stylistic reasons, we compose sentences so that we don’t repeat the same word and often resort to synonyms – at least professional writers in the language do. I’ve lucked out personally. I have a much larger than average vocabulary, and a naturally developed, graduate level, reading ability (based on standard tests). As you pointed out in your own article we have really been failing our children and ourselves with our poor educational system.
By the way your article is a very good start. You’ve put some real though and work into it. I’ll try to give it a critical review in my own blog when I can but I’m a bit loaded down with client work that I’ve been neglecting too long. Thanks for taking my advice about how to publish it if that’s what prompted you to do so.
@egbegb @CFrancisHabeck The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution extended the Bill of Rights to the States – a lot of the protections we enjoy with regards to the BoR at the state level are the result of that. the 14th has its own problems, but that is one of its benefits.
@thebasketcase @egbegb @CFrancisHabeck
RE 14th Amendment
Show me please.
If it did, then it merely listed the enumerated powers of states.
Is that right?
Did it do that? If the Fed cannot tell me how much to pay my lawn care specialist, why can a state?
@egbegb @CFrancisHabeck It was several cases – I can look them up, but it will take hours. The most recent is the one where gun rights were extended to the state level – one of the points brought up in this very article. The Constitution was mostly created to regulate governments (state and Federal) and trade – but not citizens. The Federal government can’t tell you how much to pay, and neither can the state, but they BOTH can tell the lawn care specialist what they can charge as long as he is operating as a business. Despite a recent SCOTUS ruling, a business is NOT a person, and certainly not a citizen.
And, no, it did not list the enumerated powers of the states. It was the usage of the “Equal Protection” clause that did it (mostly). And if you read the Bill of Rights you will see one of the Amendments states that just because a right isn’t enumerated that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist and the people of the United States be denied that right just because it isn’t listed. 9th Amendment. This “First 8″ bullshit is just that – bullshit. There are TEN amendments to the Bill of Rights. This State vs Federal citizenship stuff being tossed about is very dangerous. Virginia used to dictate peoples’ faith – you want that back? The Federal government is our source of common rights and protections of law. And its authority begins with Article VI of the Constitution. The Founders greatly feared the power of BOTH state and Federal Governments. Try reading Article I, section 10 sometime and see all the restrictions placed on state governments.
@thebasketcase @egbegb
Your handle”thebasketcase” says it all.
You accept that the SCOTUS is the authority when their rulings support your concepts but deny that authority when the ruling plainly states otherwise.
“The Constitution was mostly created to regulate governments (state and Federal) and trade – but not citizens.”
The People of the States, through their State representatives, created the Constitution. Their purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation which had an extremely weak federal gevernment.
The Original Constitution has very little restrictions on the States. The States’ Constitutons are supposed to be the controlling authority within the States. The federal Constitution granted no control over a State’s Citizens. There were concerns that the federal government would attempt to exert control over the State’s Citizens which was the reason for the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, as some of the Founder’s feared, the people now seem to think that their rights come out of the document.
“ The most recent is the one where gun rights were extended to the state level..”
Those rights were not “extended” to the States, but affirmed the fact that the citizenry held those rights independent of the Constitution. Unless the citizens amended their State Constitution’s to allow for control of gun rights, the States are not allowed to ban firearms.
Your problem seems to be a refusal to accept that these United States of America are supposed to be individual Free States who have granted to a federal government SOME of their authority in order to deal with certain affairs that must be ubniform throughout the country.
As I stated before, the SCOTUS has stated that the term “United States” can have several meanings. One is the federal governemnt and one is the several States. These definitions are used in all laws. If you do not realize this, you assume that all laws pertain to you.
Email me for a copy of “A Patriot’s Thoughts”. It is a primer on reality.
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb
Now that really WAS ad hominem as it was direct at me personally. (“ad hominem” – “to the man”).I accept SCOTUS’s authority but not blindly. I may not LIKE their decisions sometimes, but when I DO criticize one of their decisions I’m prepared to be accountable for those criticisms
“The People of the States, through their State representatives, created the Constitution. Their purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation which had an extremely weak federal gevernment.”
Mostly correct. But interstate commerce was on their agenda. It’s part of the historic documents discussing the purpose of the Convention. That was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were considered so weak because of interstate trade issues.
Actually the Constitution had quite a few restrictions on the states. They are not full sovereign governments. A full sovereign government can enter treaties with other sovereigns, make war, raise armies, decide on their own currency, regulate commerce across their borders and collect revenue from that commerce, decide on their own form of government, and are able to determine what legal actions by other nations they may recognize. Try reading Article I, Section 10 and Article IV of the United States Constitution sometime. In fact much of Article I, Section 10 comes from the Articles of Confederation! That’s right – the several states have NEVER been fully independent, sovereigns.
And in the case of Illinois, gun rights WERE extended, at least the ones acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution. The fact that those rights really existed is pretty moot if the state and municipalities were actively trying to suppress them as they were.
Several free states granting SOME of their authority? Try reading Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution sometime. You might also reread the Preamble. “We the people…” not “We the people of the the following states”. Nor did it read “We, the States…” The Constitution created a single free nation and the several states agreed to be part of that nation as subject states.
And why don’t you just post your article on one of the many free blogs out there? You know, allow public review and criticism? Accountability? Instead of hijacking the topic of another forum and demanding peoples’ private email addresses?
Primer on reality? Sounds like arrogant hubris already.
@thebasketcase @egbegb
read: http://patriot1789.blogdrive.com/
thebasketcase,
One concern I have is you say you have read the decisions and followed the Court’s reasoning. There is your problem. Try reading them with an understanding of how this a country was set up. Since we have been lied to, why use the liars’ reasoning?
@CFrancisHabeck@thebasketcase@egbegb
Man I cannot tell you how excited I am to hear all these arguments about words and symbols simply strewn across a page that are to describe some activity. Context is a funny word in itself because it allows for interpretation versus showing the act, the decision and the result of such, as described in definition 2. Since results don’t lie it becomes important to know the difference.
So please show me why we have a constitution in the first place, what purpose does it serve in reference to the Declaration of Independence?
Its always good to know your foundation before interpreting anything because interpretation is not understanding and has nothing to do with understanding the decisions, actions and results.
Why do we have a Declaration of Independence? What would be the reason at all? Then why would we have a constitution to support it?
What do judges have to do with it if they only wrote interpreting laws? Who the hell is the authority of your own choices? Should we base this on symbols or actions?
The English language if you will go take the time to look was not created for understanding at all and it has only grown into interpretation as it was intended. These symbols only represent something (action or thing) so what are those they describe? And you can argue this all day long because you have been so well trained in your education to interpret all day long but it will not change the direction we are headed.
The second amendment is an inalienable right to protect my LIFE which too is an inalienable right by birth and not by paper or permission. The second amendment is a restriction of a governing body to refrain or limit itself and does not allow them all these bogus laws they create by lawyers who then become judges and pretend authority upon me.
We also forget that much of the interpretation today is in support of the Federal Corporation and has nothing to do with my inalienable rights at all, you know my independence, my declared separation from tyrannical Government, you all know what that is right?
The constitution by actions is my inalienable right to have LIBERTY (to be free from those imposing upon my inalienable rights) and when it is not applied in this manner can only support some other cause period.
So screw interpretation and show me by the acts it suggests that I am allowed as life and all my inalienable rights I am allowed to freely operate in my community, in my state as well in other states united in such a decision. When this is achieved describe this in a much clearer understanding form so even your 5 year old can understand what they are able to DO. Because it is impossible to LIVE without the doing part.
If this sounds harsh to you (which I fully hope it does) is because I am tired of all these bull shit arguments about what something means verses good old choices, actions and results that can fully be seen and then chosen to use or deny in support of myself as LIFE! Since LIFE is fully capable of such acts, are you then this LIFE? Use the mirror and stop thinking or interpreting it, we can be understood very clearly should we DECIDE.
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @egbegb
Regarding my “Your handle”thebasketcase” says it all.”
I apologize for that and am sorry for the comment.
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @egbegb @hotmail
Trying another site to post “A Patriot’s Thoughts 1″
http://cfhabeck.blogspot.com/
@WilliamSchooler @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb
Your frustration is understandable. It’s the exact type of frustration that led to the Declaration of Independence in the first place. As for why we had the Articles of Confederation and later a Constitution we did not want to be like the country we were calling it quits from who had no definite set of rules that everyone could inspect and understand. Not for the people, not for the government. Actually there WAS and IS the Magna Carta but that only reduced the power of the monarchy and allowed popular control in the first place. But it kept the nobility entrenched to the detriment of the general population.
Legal documents like the U.S. Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, etc. try to create a common frame of reference or try to get everyone “on the same page”. Things like this are used quite heavily. Our modern technologies depend on such in the interests of common functionality and safety (I’ve been an international product certification engineer). Our lives often literally depend on such.
And during the ratification of the Constitution it was the courts and/or the PEOPLE who were supposed to decide the meaning of laws. You are quite right WE are supposed to decide. We are supposed to be the nation’s sovereigns. We’ve substantially lost that.
@CFrancisHabeck @WilliamSchooler @egbegb Yes, that came out MUCH better!
@thebasketcase@CFrancisHabeck@egbegb
To decide based on what? I am hardly frustrated and down right pissed that WE allow Symbolism to be the power over anything. What do the people decide based on? I know what Government makes decisions based on and its called the corporation and it is their only choice as long as they are one. Again what makes Independence possible? Who separates, some other? Who the hell are the deciding on this earth? Government or sovereign individuals? Its not a body of folks who decide, we all do or we all don’t, we either love the direction we are headed or we DECIDE we do not.
These are acts folks, things WE do or we DO NOT. There are no pretty flowers in this arrangement there is only the truth which can be SEEN and determinations made, then let us describe the mess or the solutions when presented. Today we have 0, who wants to argue this? Government expands every day, this act is called tyranny, if we do not stop it it will continue as it has in every single history description.
LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuits of happiness are my basis for all my choices because without these is tyranny on display period.
@WilliamSchooler@thebasketcase@CFrancisHabeck@egbegb
WilliamSchooler is striking much closer to the root cause of the dearth of liberty throughout human kind and human history. I’m am entirely sick of the complex “ink on paper” and the endless debate surrounding it. (I only initially posted here because my own habits die hard.)
There are only two ways to influence people–force and reason. Using reason is a moral action, whereas the initiation of force against others is not moral. Government, by its very definition, initiates and uses force! Q.E.D.
@calinb7 @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb Thank you, All choices are not by violence and reason alwasy has good sound reason to back it, something you can view and determine with. A great choice is an informed choice and we should know what we are capable of.
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb I’m not sure what you mean by “ All choices are not by violence.” Just to make my position clear: If I am threatened with lethal force and the prospect of being caged (jailed), if I resist the inherent force of the state that is initiated against me, and I choose to exercise liberty by disobeying laws, then my choices are not free and voluntary. This assertion is fully supported by the definition of the word, “voluntary.” Furthermore, the involuntary nature of my choices is invariant of whether or not the people initiating the violence against me permit me to vote in public elections.
Liberty is always sacrificed when moral double standards exist for the state, i.e. when the state exists. Double moral standards actually result in no moral standards at all. People are sacrificing many more liberties to the state each and every day, but this is to be expected. Government only “runs in one direction!”
@calinb7@thebasketcase@CFrancisHabeck@egbegb
What I mean is just because I have the ability to decide does not give me the authority to use force. Now if someone decides to use force against me I have the inalienable right to protect and promote life. You can call it moral all you want, I call it survival.
I don’t believe in laws I did not agree to, they can make all the laws they want and it does not mean I am in compliance just because they wrote them down.
Liberty is only sacrificed when I refuse to stand upon its terms to limit those who impose themselves on my life and the life around me for they have no more authority than I to decide any such action.
Life is an inalienable right a principal for choice in the direction of its support only, call it moral or what ever you want but actions speak far louder than words. My actions to preserve life, allow life and grow as life are only in support of myself in such a self respect and nothing less.
Make sense?
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb Yes. I think one can make a case in basing these beliefs on ethics, inalienable rights, or simply the natural right of any organism to defend itself. However, if we only have “laws” that individuals (such as yourself) “agree-to,” we have voluntarism instead of government. I’m all for that! Also, people can morally impose rules that other people agree to, as a condition of voluntary relationships, but people cannot use force to compel the actions of others, and still act morally–even when acting via the political processes and the violent proxy of a democracy, republic, or any other form of government. I’m not against rules. I’m only against rulers!
@calinb7@thebasketcase@CFrancisHabeck@egbegb
Thus we have large agreement between reasonable men or Life in respect of Life. Rulers simply make it up in their minds they are authority for which they have none. Public office is not to rule it is to serve public by allowing and not ruling. This is an act we all want as life, to be allowed, to live and test ideas because growth is an impossibility without such an act. Which acts support you as this Life?
What I have is common respect as I have for I for I wish to be treated as I treat others as in mutual or as eye to eye. This is nothing more than common ground or high respect.
Our lesson today is simple, when in the minds of men they make up false authority they display this by actions and is false authority, they know it and we know it, we allow them to continue mainly because we lack our own self respect as LIFE as our Foundation and Principals for which we should decide. This Foundation has always been the Declaration of Independence and is what the Constitution was built upon but is not what it was altered on for it was simply not used by them nor by us.
So long as the Scalia interpretation in Heller stands, all your arguing and rationalizing about a pre-existing right is fruitless. If my local or federal government decided tomorrow to confiscate every gun I own who would stand up for me? Scalia’s interpretation is a mile wide and deepening. It allows any government to regulate or confiscate my guns. If the government can decide on what constitutes a dangerous firearm what legal precedent do I have to refuse to surrender my guns? Absolutely none!
Two things keeps the BATFE and politicians at bay. The first is the threat that the politicians won’t be re-elected if they vote for gun control. The second is that the BATFE cowards are afraid that one gun owner will stand up to them and defend his rights with his life. It happened at Waco but the government was able to demonize the Branch Davidians as a right wing bunch of, wacko, religious zealots who believed in polygamy and sex with female children, effectively stymieing sympathy for the cause of the Davidians and any armed resistance elsewhere.
69 women and children were murdered at the Branch Davidian Compound and not a single cowardly federal agent from the FBI or the BATFE were prosecuted—NONE—and Janet Reno took responsibility for the raid–BFD. She didn’t even get a nasty note from her boss Bill Clinton. http://bigeye.com/pentwaco.htm “They murdered 96 people in front of our eyes on national TV, and the public bought it.” The FBI and BATFE razed the site, not allowing state officials to inspect the site. They had to destroy the evidence that would have gotten them tried for murder.
The only successful armed resistance to government authority in recent memory occurred at Athens, TN in 1946. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens-seiber.htm It seems that some ex GIs borrowed M1s and Thompson’s from the NG armory and laid siege to the jail to get stolen ballot boxes back for an honest vote count. No body was arrested.
If you really want stymy the gun control freaks Schumer, Levin, Feinstein, et al., remind their constituency that these vermin champion the 1968 Gun Control Act which was written by Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) using the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 as a blueprint, taking some sections nearly verbatim from the translation provided to him by the Library of Congress using the copy he acquired while a US prosecuting attorney of the Nazis at the Nuremburg war-crimes trials in 1946 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html Dodd was the author of the act and its chief sponsor.
Wall street has its two parties, it’s time we the people had our own! We the people do not elect the POTUS, the Electoral College does. It won’t matter who you vote for, it will be business as usual, just the money going into a different pocket If you watch this http://youtu.be/IWDJEc92d38 you will have to agree that we need our own party. I encourage everyone to change their party affiliation to INDEPENDENT, you can still vote in the primaries with whichever party you choose to.If “WE THE PEOPLE” do this it WILL SEND A MESSAGE to the “powers that be” THAT WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!Imagine if all the RED and BLUE States all turned GOLD and SILVER(real money feels soooo different and keeps it’s value). READ THE CONSTITUTION AGAIN!(if you don’t have a copy, google it) Only it and the wisdom of our forefathers can save us. Sgt. Mac – USMC – Vietvet – I served so YOU could be FREE! Financial terrorism is not freedom, It makes us ALL SLAVES If you agree, help me POST THIS. If you don’t, just keep flaggin, it let’s me know I’m on the right track. Help me make this go viral!
Is there a clear statement of what “privileges and immunities” means?
RE http://patriot1789.blogdrive.com/
posted by patriot1789
“All court decisions will be presumed to follow the law unless overwhelming proof is given to the contrary.”
I’ve read court decisions and the founding documents and can find nothing but conflict between the two,
especially in 5-4 decisions.
Politics and faction seem to have overwhelmed justice. FDR proved that when he attempted
to pack the court, lost the court packing argument but changed the reasoning of at least
one Justice to subvert critical thinking. Those 5-4 decisions against FDR suddenly
changed to 5-4 decisions for. Why should we respect that kind of law?
Are you saying ’5-4′ decisions are correct interpretations of the US Consititution?
On the list of things you read, I think the Federalist Papers are not there.
Did I miss them. Even Justice Marshall quoted them. Are you using
a dictionary from 1787 or one published more recently?
If you use a new dictionary for old words how does that convince? If you use a
dictionary from 1787, which one and where can I read it.
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
@egbegb @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
That sounds like it might be a start to a good rebuttal. I have yet to read the article you reference, so I’m not in a position to comment further. I’m still building up a lengthy rebuttal in my blog for the “Citizenship” link that was posted here earlier (been working on it since late last night!)
Edit: I’ve just started skimming it. *sigh* @CFrancisHabeck actually has some good points but he falls into the same errors as the other article – and he has a bunch of strange characters in his blog post. It looks like he blindly copied and pasted from a Microsoft Word or similar document into his blog. How do you fix that? You do “Save As” and save the file as plain text without formatting or special characters and copy/paste from that. I guess I’ll tackle it next…
@egbegb @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
I did forget the Federalist Papers.
Some of the “conflicts” in reading the Court’s dicisions is the dual nature of citizenship.
The Court is not obligated to explain which Citizen/United States is being addressed.
You are correct the FDR really corrupted the SCOTUS starting with their approval of the farm bill which essentially nationalized all farm in the country.
Note, I stated “presumed” as you can find the truth in almost any decision with less truth in newer decisions. The essential decision are the older ones since the separation of State and federal citizen was more pronounced. There are no State Citizens left as we have all been converted into federal ones. My paper does explain this but some confusion does exist. We are supposed to have a federal NOT a national government as it pertains to Citizenship; that’s why the territories were so determined to become States. One other example of the change in definition of “state” is the fact that all post War Betwen the States constitutions contain a phrase about the U.S. Constitution being the supreme law. Pre WBtS Constitutions did not refer to the U.S. Constitution since it was only the “Supreme Law” in those areas designated to it.
5-4 decisions are often political ones but they do offer insights into how our justices have allowed themselves to be swayed by popularity, politics, and emotion. These decisions can also be viewed as simply following the Constitution where it declares that Congress can make pretty much whatever laws it wants for DC and the territories and possessions of the U.S.
My paper is not meant to be all inclusive but a primer. There are many examples of the two meanings of “United States” found in our laws.
Pleas look at the actual text of our laws; you will find a definition section. These will usually state the definitions of United States and States. They will often be something like this:
United States : the States, the Dictrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands.
States : the Dictrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands.
Please note that when referencing the 50 united States under the Constitution the term used is “the several States”. That term is usually not found in the definitions. Most of you, I hope, know about substituting like terms. So substitute the definitions of “States” with the term “States” in the definition of United States. Do you see any reference to the several states?
In the IRS code you will find several interesting paragraphs such as:
“When used geographically, the term “United States” MEANS the several States.”
No confusion there but elsewhere you wil see:
“The term “United States” INCLUDES the states, the District of Columbia. etc.”
Most of us would naturally ASSUME that it includes the several states but that is not what it says.
For an excellent paper on the IRS Code, read at least the first four chapters of “The Fedral Zone”.
It’s early and I may be rambling, so I will stop here.